What does it mean to abide "in Christ?"

[Christian7801]

So, you can take a little snippet from Scripture and from that alone, you get Sacred Scripture?? Do you have any idea in how many other places in apocryphal gospels, supposed writings of “Apostles” and many other sources ALSO contain those words? Do you believe anything from antiquity that uses expressions “thus says the Lord” should be a part of the Bible?

Try to make sense. That’s no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. The Timothy quote mentions only that Scriptures exist, but not what they are. How can you use that quote to define what Scriptures are? The Peter quote is actually an argument against private judgment, and which only admits that Paul wrote letters, but does not say they are to be reckoned with Scriptures.

You haven’t made any case for why you accept the Bible as we have it, except that the Church told you so. You accept this doctrine of the Church. But then right away start making up you own non-biblical Doctrines like private judgment. That is exactly what St. Peter is writing against in you second quote. There is nothing in the Bible enshrining the doctrine of private judgment. Yet it is SO IMPORTANT that it can be used to dismiss all Church Doctrines at will! Why is something so important NOT in the Bible, and why do you accept non-Biblical teachings? Are these YOUR private judgments?

2 Peter 1:20 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter} of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, **but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. **

Who are men moved by the Holy Spirit? Is it the natural man? Is it the the saved, people who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? The private interpretation is the interpretation of those who do not know God or the “natural man”.

 

[Howie01]

benedictus2:

If you read the entire Chapter 14 of John you will realize that He is speaking here about the coming of the Paraclete. This discourse was given to his disciples at the Last Supper. This is actually in support of the Catholic position that the Church cannot err because Christ has promised that she will ALWAYS be guided by the Holy Spirit. This promise of leading into all Truth is not given to given to all.

Also, neither of these two verses talk about being “sealed” in the Spirit.

For the fourth time, my use of Jn 14:16 is to demonstrate, along with Eph 1:3, and 4:30, that the sealing of the Spirit is forever.

benedictus2:

Case 3: Jesus prayed that his Church will be one. Protestants are a mish mash of 33000 denomininations. The Holy Spirit Unites. The devil divides. So which spirit is really in action here?

That statement is similar to an earlier statement you made, to which I responded:Well, we can test your consistency in adhering to the argument you present.

Within Catholicism is found “splintering” as you call it. You have the traditionalists “splintered” against the liberals, and the liberals “splintered” against the traditionalists, and both of those “splintered” against the “cafeterias,” and some are “splintered” against the SSPX, and the SSPX are “splintered” against those who are “splintered” against them, and the sedevcantists are “splintered” against some past popes, up to the present pope, saying they’re not valid popes, and the present pope is “splintered” against the sedevacantists, and on and on, and all under the umbrella of Roman Catholicism.Who is it you said divides, benedictus2?

benedictus2:

Yes she does. But the Catholic position is not like Calvin’s. We believe in predestination of the elect but not pre-destination of the damned.

Like it or not, God’s predestining some to the kingdom necessitates His predestining others elsewhere, no matter how you spin it.

benedictus2:

You believe in pre-destination of the damned. Pre-destination of the damned presupposes an evil God.

ISTM that you’re deliberately trying to be wrong; are you?

In attempting to place Calvinists upon the horns of a dilemma, you seat yourself right next to them. Both you and they, believe in a God who has it within His power to persuade all men to believe the Gospel, thereby saving each and every one.

But, He doesn’t.

benedictus2:

The God of the Bible is a God of love.

That’s one of the most distorted views of God a person can hold, IMO.

benedictus2:

No. Perhaps you should find out first whether you understood me correctly. When I said that Abraham was actually righteous not merely declared righteous, it means that Christ’s salviific death caused the gates of heaven to open and pour out graces on our soul so that we are actually MADE righteous i.e. we actually BECOME righteous, instead of merely being declared to be so.

Here’s what you said:

Abraham was declared righteous not by mere believing but by actually being righteous.

That says Abraham was not justified by believing, but he was justified because he was righteous.

If you’d like to re-phrase that, go ahead.

benedictus2:

In protestant understanding we are merely covered with Christ righteousness but underneath we are still the same vile creature as before. No real change has taken place.

That Christ covers the believer is the testimony of Scripture:**Galatians 3:27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.**What is “clothed with Christ” if not a covering?

The change that takes place in justification is one of “position” before God—clothed with Christ. The “real” change, as you call it, comes about through sanctification.

(continued)

 

[Howie01]

(continued from post #400)

benedictus2:

Catholic belief is that Christ’s life, death and resurrection actually regenerates us and make us good i.e. righteous.

No it’s not. Catholic belief is that regeneration occurs at baptism.CCC para 1213: … "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

benedictus2:

Refer to my reply above regarding the crediting of Christ’s righteousness. We are not “credited” with Christ’s righteousness. When we are sanctified, we are made holy not merely declared holy.

Justification and sanctification are not the same thing.

benedictus2:

You do not have a coherent “why” and “how” of salvation that is why you are probably an adherent of OSAS.

Eternal security is part of the Gospel—it’s good news.

That one can lose salvation is not part the Gospel—it’s not good news.

benedictus2:

Yes, we are given the gift of salvation by grace but we have to perservere. Perseverance is WORK.

Salvation by works.

benedictus2:

This is where you Protestants fall into a lot of error. You mutilate the word of God. You need to re-read 1 Peter. And I mean the whole chapter! Maybe then you will realize what verses 3-5 really means. Keep reading the rest of the chapter and maybe pay attention to verses 13-23.

Oh please.

V13 begins, “Therefore,” IOW, because of the truth spoken prior to verse 13, Peter exhorts them to holiness. Peter was a good pastor, and every good pastor exhorts the faithful to holiness. That’s sanctification.

Here, look with what words the Lord’s brother closes his epistle:**Jude 24

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy…**Jesus keeps us from stumbling down here, so that He can present us blameless up there. That’s what Peter’s saying. Sheez.

benedictus2:

You keep saying that and I have just shown you James. And I have also explained to you that you cannot dismiss James with a verse from Paul.

You’ve taken a very long time to respond to my post, so I don’t remember you saying anything about James. Nevertheless, neither can you dismiss Paul with a verse from James—Paul says much more on the subject than James anyway, and his consistent message is that law and the Gospel do not mix.

benedictus2:

Precisely. You have just proven my point.

You’ve been a very long time in answering my post. You’ll have to refresh my memory as to how my one word answer proves your point.

 

[Howie01]

AmbroseSJ:

I wasn’t endorsing your private interpretation, I was asking why you changed my words, which you didn’t answer.

I know you weren’t about to endorse my interpretation. You’re an anomaly, my friend in your distinction between “private judgment,” and “private interpretation.” Your catechism speaks only of interpretation; I can’t recall it making the distinction you make. However, I stand ready to be corrected with an appropriate CCC citation to the contrary.

AmbroseSJ:

Howie, you underlined the wrong word, it should have been:
Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement of a canon addressed to the church.

The previous infallible pronouncements of the canon were not “effectual” in the sense that they were not combating a heretical canon the way Trent did.

Anyhow, it doesn’t change the fact that Trent confirmed the Catholic Canon that had been in use since the 4th century.

There were no "previous infallible pronouncements of the canon."

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: Trent was the first infallible pronouncement.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Howie01:

I know you weren’t about to endorse my interpretation. You’re an anomaly, my friend in your distinction between “private judgment,” and “private interpretation.” Your catechism speaks only of interpretation; I can’t recall it making the distinction you make. However, I stand ready to be corrected with an appropriate CCC citation to the contrary.

Why on earth would the Catholic Catechism have an entry on private judgment? That is not a Catholic belief. The Catechism (in case you were unaware) is about what Catholics believe, not what they don’t believe. It’s Protestants that define themselves by what they don’t believe. Viz: they protest against the Church’s beliefs.

 

[Howie01]

Why on earth would the Catholic Catechism have an entry on private judgment? That is not a Catholic belief. The Catechism (in case you were unaware) is about what Catholics believe, not what they don’t believe. It’s Protestants that define themselves by what they don’t believe. Viz: they protest against the Church’s beliefs.

As I said, Ambrose, you’re an anomaly.

 

[fbl9]

(continued from post #400)

No it’s not. Catholic belief is that regeneration occurs at baptism.CCC para 1213: … “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”
[just what does IN THE WORD mean?]
Justification and sanctification are not the same thing.

Eternal security is part of the Gospel—it’s good news.

That one can lose salvation is not part the Gospel—it’s not good news.

Salvation by works.
[you have no understanding of what salvation by works even means…salvation by works means that if one has been good they are to be given the gift of faith and deseve the reward of heaven because of their good works.]
Oh please.

V13 begins, “Therefore,” IOW, because of the truth spoken prior to verse 13, Peter exhorts them to holiness. Peter was a good pastor, and every good pastor exhorts the faithful to holiness. That’s sanctification.

Here, look with what words the Lord’s brother closes his epistle:Jude 24

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy…Jesus keeps us from stumbling down here, so that He can present us blameless up there. That’s what Peter’s saying. Sheez.

You’ve taken a very long time to respond to my post, so I don’t remember you saying anything about James. Nevertheless, neither can you dismiss Paul with a verse from James—Paul says much more on the subject than James anyway, and his consistent message is that law and the Gospel do not mix.

You’ve been a very long time in answering my post. You’ll have to refresh my memory as to how my one word answer proves your point.

 

[fbl9]

first off Howie you really should try to get a better understanding of what “salvation by works” really means…second you should really read the the whole of St.Jude’s epistle…cause it really describes people like you…what did St,Jude mean by “twice dead”?v.12

 

[ryanoneil]

That verse is comparing the Mosaic sacrifices with Christ’s once for all sacrifice of Himself here on earth. After His bodily resurrection He ascended and entered the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood and now appears in the presence of God FOR US (“on our behalf”). This is in reference to His High Priestly work as Intercessor and Advocate, not His sacrificial work.

Finish the passage:Heb 9:25-28 "…nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this {comes} judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

He’s not “offering” anything. With the shedding of His blood on earth God was forever propitiated.

That is great, except your last comment. You are completely ignoring the scripture passage I provided. The whole point of entering the Holy of Holies is to offer the sacrife to God. The continuous cycle of high priests offering sacrifices and going in and out of the Holy of Holies year after year stands in contrast to Christ, who appeared once for all (9:26), died once for all (9:28), and entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all (9:12)

The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer. (Heb 8:1-3)

Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. (Heb 9:23-24)

This offering is in heaven, and there is no artificial seperation of His high priestly work and sacrifices.
If this is not describing His earthly sacrifice, what is it?

He actively pleads in our defense whenever Satan (the accuser) makes an accusation against us (the redeemed) (Rev. 12:10).

Why does He need to do that? You just got done saying “With the shedding of His blood on earth God was forever propitiated.”

Whenever Satan makes an accusation against us Jesus pleads in our defense by re-presenting His sacrifice. Describe it however you want (Jesus points to his sacrifice, remembers, recognizes, renews, etc. . .) but it is what it is. Any other sort of plea would means that His once for all sacrifice was not sufficient.

There is no “biblical sense” in contrast to “common sense.” It simply means “in recognition of.” IOW, do this in recognition of my historical, sacrificial death on your behalf through which I obtained your eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). “In remembrance of” testifies to this one time, once for all, historical event. The ordinance was never to be a re-presentation (that’s impossible), but a constant recognition of what historically occurred, “once for all” for the believer’s "eternal redemption:"Heb 9:12 "…but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.Having “obtained” (past tense) is in reference to what He accomplished, once for all, through His sacrificial, sin-bearing, blood sacrifice while on earth.

Compair this with the the OT imagery. The ratification of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai called for a sacrifice (Ex 24:5) The renewal of the covenant on the Day of Atonement called for a sacrifice for the transgressions of the people (Lev 16:15). They were not just remembering the ratification of the covenant, they were renewing it. Now that imagery doesn’t exactly fit, but it does.

The sacrificial blood of Christ ratified a New Covenant but it also atoned for the sins committed in the past and future. The single sacrifice of Jesus is definitive and unrepeatable. It was ratifie at a single point in time on earth, but it entered into eternity where He presented it to the Father. Being everpresent in heaven makes truely once for all, spaning forward and backward through all eternity.

Describe it however you want (Jesus points to his sacrifice, remembers, recognizes, renews, etc. . .) but it is what it is. Christ’s perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. The “remembrance” Jesus instituted is the breaking through to earth of the offering of Himself that Christ makes eternally in heaven simply by His presence there."

 

[AmbroseSJ]

ryanoneil:

Describe it however you want (Jesus points to his sacrifice, remembers, recognizes, renews, etc. . .) but it is what it is. Christ’s perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass.

Excellent post Ryan! Your explanation was crystal clear. You may have already mentioned that the Royal Prophet says in Psalm 109 in the Vulgate or Psalm 110 in modern versions:

 1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." 2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies." 3 Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;  In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew.  4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

Our Blessed Savior Himself quoted this Psalm to the Pharisees, indicating it was about Himself. Even Protestants agree that Jesus is our High Priest. And how can a High Priest be a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek? By offering Daily, Everywhere, by the agency of our ordained priest, the bread and wine (prefigured by Melchizedek) which is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which was offered once in the bloody Aaronic Order and then combined and transfigured into the Order of Melchizedek by his Command at the Last Supper, to DO this as the everlasting sacrifice of the New Covenant.

 

[Christian7801]

So, you can take a little snippet from Scripture and from that alone, you get Sacred Scripture?? Do you have any idea in how many other places in apocryphal gospels, supposed writings of “Apostles” and many other sources ALSO contain those words? Do you believe anything from antiquity that uses expressions “thus says the Lord” should be a part of the Bible?

Try to make sense. That’s no reason to accept the canon of the Bible. The Timothy quote mentions only that Scriptures exist, but not what they are. How can you use that quote to define what Scriptures are? The Peter quote is actually an argument against private judgment, and which only admits that Paul wrote letters, but does not say they are to be reckoned with Scriptures.

You haven’t made any case for why you accept the Bible as we have it, except that the Church told you so. You accept this doctrine of the Church. But then right away start making up you own non-biblical Doctrines like private judgment. That is exactly what St. Peter is writing against in you second quote. There is nothing in the Bible enshrining the doctrine of private judgment. Yet it is SO IMPORTANT that it can be used to dismiss all Church Doctrines at will! Why is something so important NOT in the Bible, and why do you accept non-Biblical teachings? Are these YOUR private judgments?

2 Peter 1:20 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter} of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Who are men moved by the Holy Spirit? Is it the natural man? Is it the the saved, people who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? The private interpretation is the interpretation of those who do not know God or the “natural man”.

 

[SHW]

Don’t listen to him. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.

The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint…The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.Trent was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement of a canon addressed to the church.

So many Catholics, so many different understandings of Catholic teachings.

Sorry, Howie, but the Church only did this at the Council of Trent in order to defend its constant belief in the original Canons of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. It officially promulgated this at Trent in order to show that it had not changed its Canons so that Catholics would not be led astray by Protestant reformers and their “removal” of books and passages from the Bible Canons. Jesus and the Apostles quoted mostly from the Septuagint and this is why this Canon was adopted by the early Church:

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Concerning the Jewish Canon: The Council That Wasn’t:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Pax,
SHW

 

[moondweller]

Sorry, Moondweller, but we are in the times of the Gentiles right now

Yes we are. And we will be until the end of the age when the King returns to set up His Millennial rule on earth. And then no longer will Jerusalem be “trampled under foot by the Gentiles” (Lk. 21:24).

and we will be until it is time for the Remnant of Israel to come into His Church. (Romans 9:27).

Rom. 9:27 states nothing about the remnant of Israel coming into the church. It, in fact, states nothing about the church, but Israel (Jacob). Paul’s speaking of the time when the New Covenant will be established with national Israel. For now, during this church age, there’s the “mystery” of the “partial hardening” that has happened to (national) ISRAEL until “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”, i.e., into the church. Not the remnant of Israel - you’ve got it backward. A remnant of Jewish believers in the church is a given (Rom. 11:5).

When the church is completed she’ll be taken up to meet the Lord in the air, and God will turn again to national Israel to fulfill His prophetic and unconditional, covenant promises with that nation. But for now… “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of {God’s} choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Jewish Patriarchs); for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28-29).

The Remnant will not be able to come into the Church until the fullness of the Gentiles is completed.

That’s not at all what that verse is saying. Don’t read into it your own preconceived notions.

Jesus never returns to the Old Covenant. His New Covenant is a better one.

That’s right. So why do you Catholics keep insisting you’re still under law (with its Decalogue) and the power of sin?

Jesus establishes His New Covenant at the Last Supper.

No He didn’t. He established the ordinance of Communion with His church. He said “do this in remembrance of Me” in anticipation of His blood sacrifice through which the New Covenant would be inaugurated.

All believers today are a part of the body of Christ, the church, and are brought into a redeemed, grace relationship with God through the blood of the New Covenant which Christ inaugurated through the cross. But the New Covenant itself will yet be established with national Israel at Christ’s second Advent (read Eze. 31:31-34; 32:36-44).

Christ is not robbed of His rightful throne, as you say, because of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Sure He is. He came into this world born a Jew, born the rightful heir to the Davidic throne based on the unconditional covenant God made with David (2 Sam. 7:16; cf. Ps. 89:20-37; Lk. 1:32-33). Through your allegorical method of interpretation of the prophetic scriptures, you take what is literally and rightfully His on this earth by giving it a spiritual application (i.e., reign in the hearts of men) and, instead, you move the throne of David from Jerusalem to Rome, place a mitre on the head of man, a shepherd’s staff in his hand and announce to the world that he’s “vicar of Christ” on earth. I would call that spiritual robbery.

Au contraire!!! His messianic kingdom is His rightful throne.

No. The Messianic Kingdom is His rightful inheritance. And this Messianic Kingdom is, and always was, earthly. As the prophet Zechariah said:Zech 14:9 “And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be {the only} one, and His name {the only} one.”

Why would the King of Kings and Lord of Lords want a puny earthly kingdom when He has a heavenly messianic one which lasts forever?

There is no such thing as a “heavenly messianic kingdom.” Heaven always belonged to the Son. But the future, Messianic Kingdom is rightfully His through birth (incarnation). The prophecies speak of the Son of David ruling over the whole world from His father David’s throne in Jerusalem. It’s an earthly kingdom with an earthly throne.

 

[moondweller]

That is great, except your last comment. You are completely ignoring the scripture passage I provided. The whole point of entering the Holy of Holies is to offer the sacrife to God.

No Ryan it’s you who ignore the context. The writer of Hebrews is comparing the many sacrifices done in the “copy” of the true heavenly tabernacle, here on earth, with the ONCE FOR ALL blood sacrifice of the Son while here on earth. After His bodily resurrection He ascended into heaven and entered the true tabernacle, not through the blood of goats and calves (note the comparison),"…but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).Where was this sacrifice done? Where was His blood offered in that He obtained eternal redemption? Here on earth 2000 years ago. There’s no sacrifices going on in heaven or on earth for man’s redemption. Two thousand years ago Christ said “it is finished.”

Why does He need to do that? You just got done saying “With the shedding of His blood on earth God was forever propitiated.”

His sacrificial work on the cross was propitiatory toward God in that God’s offended holiness because of sin was forever satisfied through the shedding of His blood. But His heavenly, High Priestly work is for the believer’s benefit when he sins:1 John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;"When accused by Satan He announces to the Father that we belong to Him, bought (redeemed) with the price of His blood (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19).

Whenever Satan makes an accusation against us Jesus pleads in our defense by re-presenting His sacrifice.

No He doesn’t. Let the phrase “once for all” sink into your heart and believe.

Describe it however you want (Jesus points to his sacrifice, remembers, recognizes, renews, etc. . .) but it is what it is. Christ’s perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. The “remembrance” Jesus instituted is the breaking through to earth of the offering of Himself that Christ makes eternally in heaven simply by His presence there."

“Do this in remembrance of Me” is an ordinance for the church on earth in recognition of what Christ accomplished “once for all” while on earth. The “offering” of His sacrificial blood was done on earth 2000 years ago and He cried out “it is finished.” It is for men to now believe it and when those who do believe and partake of the bread and cup they do it in recognition (remembrance) of His glorious, once for all, sacrificial work through which He obtained their eternal redemption.

 

[SHW]

When the church is completed she’ll be taken up to meet the Lord in the air, and God will turn again to national Israel to fulfill His prophetic and unconditional, covenant promises with that nation.

Jesus only returns once more, not twice. And when He returns, He will be ready to judge the living and the dead.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

Those who meet Him in the air will always be with the Lord from that moment on. There is no way that He will then go back to earth and rule in Jerusalem in Israel as an earthly king.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15** For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep**. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

Only “one” Second Coming is possible. When the trumpet is blown, it signals the gathering of the sheep and the goats, both dead and alive, for the General Judgment. The dead in Christ will arise first. Then those persons who are still living at the sound of the Last Trumpet and those dead who rise first will meet Jesus and the angels in the air. The dead in Christ rise before we meet Jesus in the air.

We will always be with the Lord after our Judgment if we have abided in Him until our deaths or if we have abided in Him until we meet Him in the air.

There is no pre-tribulation rapture of the Church from earth before the end of the world so that Jesus can rule an earthly Jewish kingdom. Instead, Jesus will rule over both heaven and earth from His throne in heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

The Last Trumpet sounds for the Judgment of Mankind.

Matthew 25:31-33 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[Howie01]

Sorry, Howie, but the Church only did this at the Council of Trent in order to defend its constant belief in the original Canons of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. It officially promulgated this at Trent in order to show that it had not changed its Canons so that Catholics would not be led astray by Protestant reformers and their “removal” of books and passages from the Bible Canons. Jesus and the Apostles quoted mostly from the Septuagint and this is why this Canon was adopted by the early Church:

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Concerning the Jewish Canon: The Council That Wasn’t:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Jamnia is only a big deal to Ray; it’s not a big deal to me, or to others. The O.T. There are too many contradictions and inaccuracies in the Apocrypha.

 

[SHW]

You can discern if your church is the true Church of Christ by reading the Bible with spiritual eyes.

Seven Marks of the True Church of Christ

1. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Matthew 16:18-19 “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”.
**
2. Where there are bishops under the pope, there is the Church.**

Acts 20:28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
**
3. Where there are local priests under a bishop, there is the Church.**

Titus 1:5 "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: "

1 Timothy 4:14 “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.”
**
4. Where you can confess your sins to a priest of God, there is the Church.**

John 20:23 “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

5. Where the bread and wine is changed into body and blood of Christ on the altar, there is the Church.

John 6:51-56 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed "
**
6. Where Christians shall call the Virgin Mother of Christ blessed, there is the Church.**

Luke 1:48 " Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."
**
7. Where the saints offer the incense of our prayers to God, there is the Church.**

Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:3 “And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.”

Scriptures are taken from Douay-Rheims Bible (DRBrg) and other content is taken from catholicrevelations.org/

How does your Church measure up? Do you abide in the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church?

Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[sodak]

Who are men moved by the Holy Spirit? Is it the natural man? Is it the the saved, people who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? The private interpretation is the interpretation of those who do not know God or the “natural man”.

The men moved by the Holy Spirit are the men who have had their office handed down to them by the men to whom the Holy Spirit descended at Pentacost. The “private interpretation” is that of all those who do not follow the Church ordained by Jesus, the Catholic Church.

 

[Howie01]

You can discern if your church is the true Church of Christ by reading the Bible with spiritual eyes.

Seven Marks of the True Church of Christ

1. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Matthew 16:18-19 “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”.
**
2. Where there are bishops under the pope, there is the Church.**

Acts 20:28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
**
3. Where there are local priests under a bishop, there is the Church.**

Titus 1:5 "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: "

1 Timothy 4:14 “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.”
**
4. Where you can confess your sins to a priest of God, there is the Church.**

John 20:23 “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

5. Where the bread and wine is changed into body and blood of Christ on the altar, there is the Church.

John 6:51-56 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed "
**
6. Where Christians shall call the Virgin Mother of Christ blessed, there is the Church.**

Luke 1:48 " Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."
**
7. Where the saints offer the incense of our prayers to God, there is the Church.**

Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:3 “And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.”

Scriptures are taken from Douay-Rheims Bible (DRBrg) and other content is taken from catholicrevelations.org/

How does your Church measure up? Do you abide in the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church?

Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Pax,
SHW

eis•ege•sis \ˌī-sə-ˈjē-səs, ˈī-sə-ˌ\ noun
plural eis•ege•ses -ˌsēz\
[Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis* — more at IN]
(1892)
: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas — compare EXEGESIS

pre•sup•pose \ˌprē-sə-ˈpōz\ transitive verb
[Middle English, from Middle French *presupposer, from Medieval Latin praesupponere (perfect indicative praesupposui), from Latin prae- + Medieval Latin supponere to suppose — more at SUPPOSE]
(15th century)
1 : to suppose beforehand
2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
— pre•sup•po•si•tion (ˌ)prē-ˌsə-pə-ˈzi-shən\ noun
— pre•sup•po•si•tion•al -ˈzish-nəl, -ˈzi-shə-nəl\ adjective

 

[SHW]

Jamnia is only a big deal to Ray; it’s not a big deal to me, or to others. The O.T. There are too many contradictions and inaccuracies in the Apocrypha.

This is an excerpt from the link you posted:

The best explanation for the larger collection of sacred writings in the LXX and later in the Christian canons is that the process of limiting the number of sacred scriptures in Palestine among the Jews began after the time when Judaism had a significant effect upon the Christian community…When the Jews of a Pharisaic bent met as a college at Jamnia ca. 90 CE and, among other things, discussed sacred literature, the Christians had already decided to use the wider collection of sacred Jewish writings they had inherited from pre-70 Judaism. George Anderson is no doubt correct, therefore, when he concludes that the third part of the Jewish canon, the Writings, was still imprecise before Jamnia and that it was left up to the churches to carry out the further definition of their Christian canon, and more specifically of the third part of the OT scriptures…

These so-called errors are not a hindrance. The sun doesn’t literally “rise” or “go down” in Genesis either. The sun is always out there in space shining brightly but our earth moves around it and spins at the same time (if I’m remembering correctly) so it just seems like it “goes down” when the earth is in the dark. However, to say that the sun rises and goes down is not literally true.

Since Jesus and the Apostles mostly used the Septuagint, then it’s good enough for me.

Since the apocryphal books still have something to teach us (other than geographical errors, etc.), then I’ll overlook these errors and find the “jewels” hidden within them that the Apostles and Jesus wanted me to find since they quoted from this collection. Obviously, they didn’t mind the things that you condemn them for.

For all “Scripture Alone” folks who also disclaim the “Septuagint Canon”:

Since Hanukkah* is only found in 1 Maccabees 4 alone in the OT Scriptures and is found in no other OT book, then why was Jesus celebrating it in John 10:22-23?

John 10:22-23 “Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch.”

*The Feast of Dedication is Hanukkah.

Pax,
SHW