What if its against my conscience to be Catholic?

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Dear ‘Joy to be Catholic’, I was a baptist/anabaptist for 47 yrs. I was part of a wonderful MennoniteBrethren church until God opened my eyes to the scriptures. AntiCatholic was my mothers milk and it filled the air of our very theological home.

I think you are not reading the scriptures enough.

Listening constantly to the NASB and NIV (delightfully biased against Catholic Teaching in their translation choices, BTW) led me into the catholic church. I admit, my remembered training in Greek, Hebrew and exegesis helped somewhat, because I remembered the choices in translation that I would make, and the constant avoiding the shoals of Catholicism.
Here’s my journey in a nutshell or two. It took, looking back on it, about a year. Mind you, for 9-10 months of that journey I was just studying God, his Word, and discovering ways to reach out to those in ‘dead religious structures’. It was only in the last 2 months of that year that I realized that the truths I discovered implicit within the Scriptures were best expressed in Catholic teaching. I was angry, horrified, afraid, sad, dismayed. It was only my desire to do whatever Jesus would lead me to do that allowed me to follow Him into the Catholic church.
bedtime beckons, so a quick summary:

1. The infinite Creator God, who made this varied universe with personalities, joys, beauties, and goodnesses always revealed Himself incarnationally -through people, through people’s art, song, pictures, through Liturgy, through a people -Israel. Look at how the NT reflects on that. Realize that the NT continues that, and reflects that. realize that the NT and the OT continually need to be read in context with the community that created it. Important information essential to understanding the scriptures is not included within the scriptures. Not merely archeology and the grammar and lexicons and commentaries, but also the history of the community of faith (incl. theology)
2. That Incarnational pattern is especially manifest in the Word made flesh. Mediate upon the person of Jesus, that He, the Word, never wrote one 'cept in the sand], that He, the Word, did not merely do the act of redemption through the cross and grave and resurrection, the NT records and the OT anticipates that He established His church, He taught His apostles.
3. that incarnational pattern is manifest in you and me. We are in union with Christ. Listen to all the NT writers describe us as with, in Christ. This is not merely a theological construct, but a saving reality… that demand the church and its sacraments … also incarnational manifestations of the Infinite creator God.
   Consider how the NT describes baptism and the Lord’s Table.

4.that incarnational pattern continues within the church, its Liturgies and prayers and its sacramentals [statues, rosaries, relics, and Holy Saints [who live in Union with Christ with us who also live in union with Christ]

5.The incarnational pattern continues also within the teaching of the church especially most controversally nowdays with Mary, with chastity and openness to life [non contraceptive mentality and practice], with the value of celebacy, the the value of human sexuality and marriage between man and women, the value of children, of social justice, the value of suffering.
When you read and listen to the NT and the OT you cannot escape how catholic it all is. It also makes it easier to interpret and understand also.

Be blessed in His peace
as you humble yourself in His love,
and rejoice in His truth,
and walk in His way.

Wayne

Thank you, Wayne. I’ve seen the incarnational view as well, and that aspect troubled my Mennonite perspective. I think I would like to study that in much more detail, b/c it really affects how one views everything else about the new covenant, the church, the kingdom and priesthood…

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The Holy Spirit was promised to bring to remembrance everything that Jesus taught the Apostles. He was never promised to bring them to write everything Jesus taught them. The normative transmission medium both for the Jewish faith and the Christian faith is not written, but spoken. The faith has always been handed on in full by oral tradition and only in part by written Tradition. This is why, for instance, Paul knew the names of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses (Jannes and Jambres) despite the fact that their names were never recorded in Scripture: he knew it because Jewish oral tradition preserved those names.

I’m not opposed to all tradition, just those don’t seem to jive with the Scriptures. Like I said, b/c I can find in the ECF writings the possibility that those traditions existed at that time, I do not know with certainty, 2000 years later, if in fact it was evidence that those things were in pracice, or if it was his personal belief which became seeds to later developed teachings/traditions.

**If **God chose to preserve His word solely through oral Tradition, who would you or I be to disagree? Instead, He (may have) has chosen to preserve His revelation to mankind through written Tradition in Scripture, spoken Tradition in the living Tradition of the Church, and the living voice of the Church through the Magisterium. That’s His prerogative. Who are you to complain that He must do it some other way?

Because of the big IF . If you think men can be misleading and persuasive and fallible and “read into” Scripture wrongly, imagine what Satan can do to corrupt the church. I love 'almostcatholic’s analogy of the US and the Constitution and how, as a relatively young country, we’ve already got issues with staying true to the original intent. Now, that is merely the outcome of flawed man. But in the case of the church, we are talking about spiritual warfare. Throw Satan into the picture and see how much more corrupt and deceptive it all could be.

Again, it boils down to how you see the church, the new covenant, kingdom, priesthood… B/c if you see it as Catholics do, then “the gate of hell will not prevail” refers to one thing, and if you see it as some non-Catholics do, “the gates of hell…” refers to somethings else. I believe in God’s promise to preserve His Word, as well as His promise to preserve His church. I just see the possibility that it was done differently than the CC claims it was.

Sacred Scripture serves as a support for the Church in defending the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. It never claims to be nor is it the entirety of that deposit.

It doesn’t explicitly say it, but if you do a concordance study on “the word” you will (possibly) see that it is above all else. The difference is in what “the word” is. I know sometimes it means Jesus Christ. But it often means, literally, His Word. But the CC claims that His Word is being given to us today THROUGH the CC. I have to take the CC’s word for it in order to believe that, b/c Jesus merely tells the Apostles “he who hears you hears me”. There is no promise that he who hears your successors hears me. And since we have their writings, and since we (believers) have His Spirit, in that way Jesus IS with us till the end of time.

I think that’d be a bad bet. God foresaw that Korah would rebel against Moses and Aaron, and He made it very impossible for that rebellion to succeed, by making the earth open up to swallow Korah and his rebellion.

But that was the OT. Again, it hinges upon your view of the new covenant etc…

A perfect example are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who adhere strictly to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and who at the same deny our Lord Jesus Christ. What safety net has God provided for them, that they have subsequently rejected and fallen so far into error?

They may claim to adhere strictly to sola scrip., but they really only adhere to sola JW “scriptura”. They’ve just added to scripture to make it fit their theology.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Paul’s commandment about headcoverings is not a matter of faith, but one of practice.

According to the CC. I first have to accept the claims that the church has the authority to even label it as such before I can accept that we can now do as we please.

The Church has been explicitly given the power to bind and to loose.

The Apostles were given that power. He didn’t say “what so ever your successors bind on earth is bound in heaven…”.

Paul bound upon the Corinthian Church that women should cover their heads. The Church has the power to loose that command as well. The power to bind and to loose is a power to make and undo commands, but it doesn’t include the power to modify the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

It is scarey to me that the church can label whatever it wants as a “command” (that we can dismiss) or a “practice” (that we can dismiss). What is to prevent it from labelling other things it shouldn’t? You will say the H.S., but again, I’m not convinced it works through an instution this way.

1 Corinthians: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

I agree with that statement, and when 2000 years later, the church decides to dismiss the things the Apostles agreed on, it is already dividing. The church today is not of the same mind and same judgment.

That is to say, you’re making a lot of assertions, and stating your position, but you’re providing nothing to prove your claims correct.

That’s b/c I’m not convinced of them necessarily. I’m just looking at the possibilities. I’m just being careful not to fall for another of Satan’s deceptions (if it is one).

It must be tested against the entirety of Catholic Tradition, not just Scripture.

I thought the church taught that the Bible contains the fullness of God’s revelation to us (the end of public revelation) and that no private revelation can contradict it (meaning, the bible).

 

[Larry1700]

Thanks for the offer, but that’s okay. So, the Catechism has changed since the one I have? The new one is green? And different than the tan?

Sorry, I haven’t looked on this thread for a while. Like I promised, I’m praying for you every day this month.

I don’t know of the tan one you referred to. The reason I recommended the green one is that it was promulgated by Pope John Paul II. I like the way it is divided up, and it has a great section on prayer. Obviously, the doctrine hasn’t changed, but perhaps the explanations are more up to date. It’s very good. When I went on my mid-life 3-year spiritual journey/study period, I read it and the associated compendium, which includes the encyclicals, etc. referenced in the Catechism The encyclicals are great, because you know the date they were written, some of the events in history that the Popes were addressing at the time of hteir writing, and you can see how they applied Church doctrine to provide guidance for that time in history.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before, but give Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid a try. They helped me immensely in understanding Church teachings. Another oft-recommended title (though I haven’t had time to read it yet), is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. There’s also “Radio Replies” by Frs. Rumble and Carty, which is a compilation of their radio show where they explained Catholic teachings to callers. I unfortunately haven’t had the time to read that one either (so many books, so little time!), but it was recommended in several places.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

How can the Church say that a marriage never existed? Easily! To whom should we go if not the pillar and foundation of truth to answer such questions?

“Thy word is truth”

If a woman is drugged by a man and involved in a wedding ceremony under the influence of some drug, is she thereby married? Of course not. But the Church must officially rule that she is not married in that case. If a man and a woman get drunk in Las Vegas and get married while unThis is what I mean. der the influence of alcohol, did they genuinely enter into a lifelong covenant with each other at Joe Schmoe’s House of Matrimony?

Those are cases of common sense. We all knw that there are much more complex issues involved in most annulments

(Matthew 18) must investigate this issue and make a ruling.

Again, I’d hope the church would appeal to Scripture in trying to reprove their brother.

A large number of people who desired an annulment but did not receive one would beg to differ with your claim.

That certainly doesn’t prove annulment is right.

Now you’re entering the realm of not only unsubstantiated, but offensive accusation.

I know of people who’ve had annulments. They have told me. I understand it is offensive. I’m not trying to offend though.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Sorry, I haven’t looked on this thread for a while. Like I promised, I’m praying for you every day this month.

Thanks so much

I don’t know of the tan one you referred to.

It was being pushed by Mother Angelica. It’s gotta be pretty good.

The reason I recommended the green one is that it was promulgated by Pope John Paul II. I like the way it is divided up, and it has a great section on prayer. Obviously, the doctrine hasn’t changed, but perhaps the explanations are more up to date.

Maybe I’ll get a replacement then.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before, but give Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid a try.

I have. I’m pretty stubborn though. I don’t budge easily. They’ve got good points, but I’m still not convinced.

They helped me immensely in understanding Church teachings. Another oft-recommended title (though I haven’t had time to read it yet), is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. There’s also “Radio Replies” by Frs. Rumble and Carty, which is a compilation of their radio show where they explained Catholic teachings to callers. I unfortunately haven’t had the time to read that one either (so many books, so little time!), but it was recommended in several places.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I honestly can’t follow your argument here.

Yes, I do believe the indissolubility of marriage (obviously). Now, on one hand, the church says in some cases the marriage never happened, but on the other hand, in the case of the indellible mark of the priesthood, it cannot say that a priest was never a priest in the first place. Fr. Harding (I think) once proposed that may be the case (that corrupt priests were never priests in the first place…). It opens a huge can of worms if it’s true, however, b/c of all the sacraments that he had administered would also be invalid. And if the church has such godly authority, why can’t it take the priesthood away from a priest? I believe the orthodox church does believe this, but I’m not sure…

I would say it did. That’s why there was a need for the New Covenant.

Then the gates of hell didn’t prevail.

Yes, if the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, taught error in matters of faith and morals and mislead the very people God has commanded

through the Scriptures to obey, then I would say that the gates of hell prevailed quite successfully against that Church.
According to Catholic teaching, invinceable ignorance excuses one from culpability of following error. If there were people sincerely believing they were following truth and, more importantly, were imitating Christ, then the gates of hell did not prevail.

Then explain how the people from A.D. 110 to the advent of the printing press were to operate on the basis of Sola Scirptura

without being able either to read or to have the Bible in order to read it.Perhaps the church wasn’t teaching error at that time. It was just a thought and I won’t necessarily stand by it. Moving on, though:
You are trying to show, by some of the ECF writings, that b/c you see seeds of certain (now Catholic) beliefs (like real presence, etc.) that it means the church was actually practicing/teaching those things. I am saying that since these things were not “infallibly” pronounced until hundreds of years later, it’s possible that these beliefs and practices were gradually (and wrongly) embraced by the church. After all, since the people didn’t have Scripture themselves to test the teachings and practices against, it’s entirely feasible that they were led astray through no fault of their own.

But He preserved His written word through

men who had a faith by which they, exercising their intellectual faculties, determine which books belonged to the canon of Scripture and which did not. How can you trust the end of God’s work without trusting the means by which He worked? In the case of private revelation, we are always to look at the message, and not the person through which it comes (don’t ask me where I got it. I just remember it). God can use fallible men. He made the promise to preserve His Word.

If they did not measure the corpus they investigated by its consistency with the faith they’d received from the Apostles, how else did they determine the canon? Are you claiming that they drew straws, or rolled dice?

I have no idea how it was determined. I’ve seen examples of possibilities and it didn’t involve comparing tradition. It’s also possible they didn’t, at that time, believe they were contradicting the Scriptures (just like now)… The possibilities are endless. The bottom line is that God kept His promise and I don’t care how He did it.

The Church is referred to all throughout Scripture.

but it’s a matter of difference in how we interpret what the scriptures apply to; a physical institution, or a spiritual one (which is still visible b/c the fruit is a witness. “you may know them by their fruits”)

It’s visible even when we don’t do good works. That’s one of the reasons we’re told multiple times in Scripture not to have anything to do with people who don’t live according the Apostolic Tradition, and why we’re told to cast out the immoral brother: because they people reflect poorly on the Church, the very visible city on a hill that cannot be hidden.

The church rarely does this at all anymore. Even from a Catholic perspective it isn’t doing it enough. Nowadays, if there’s a heritcal priest, he just attracts those who agree with him and the more orthodox Catholic go somewhere else.

 

[jemfinch]

I’m not opposed to all tradition, just those don’t seem to jive with the Scriptures.

Or perhaps it’s only a particular interpretation of those Scriptures that doesn’t jive with Tradition. A man must be confident indeed in his interpretation of Scripture to make the claim that it’s more likely to be correct than the constant Tradition of the Church.

I’d be very interested in discussing, in particular, what Traditions of the Church you feel contradict Scripture. A major turning point in my own conversion to Catholicism was before I came to accept the Catholic Tradition, I first realized that it didn’t contradict Scripture, it only contradicted my interpretation of Scripture, which is just as fallible as anyone else’s. I came to believe that Catholic Traditions were consistent with an interpretation of Scripture before I believed (as I do now) that they were taught by Scripture.

If you think men can be misleading and persuasive and fallible and “read into” Scripture wrongly, imagine what Satan can do to corrupt the church. I love 'almostcatholic’s analogy of the US and the Constitution and how, as a relatively young country, we’ve already got issues with staying true to the original intent. Now, that is merely the outcome of flawed man. But in the case of the church, we are talking about spiritual warfare. Throw Satan into the picture and see how much more corrupt and deceptive it all could be.

Throw God into the picture and see how much more powerful our defense is You’re only looking at one side of the spiritual warfare coin.

Again, it boils down to how you see the church, the new covenant, kingdom, priesthood… B/c if you see it as Catholics do, then “the gates of hell will not prevail” refers to one thing, and if you see it as some non-Catholics do, “the gates of hell…” refers to somethings else.

That passage certainly leaves open to interpretation what it means when Christ says “The gates of hell shall not prevail.” But what I don’t think is open to interpretation is what Christ means by “the Church” and what rock upon which it is founded. Since long before I was Catholic, I understood that rock to be Peter, because that’s the only way to make sense of that passage. No argument I’d read (and note that I was Protestant, and sympathetic to Protestant arguments at this point) was even remotely convincing, and I’d read many of them. Christ’s discourse in Matthew 16 clearly indicates a visible leader of the Church, and the establishment of a visible leader clearly indicates a visible Church.

The Protestant interpretation of the the Church Christ promised to build in Matthew 16 as an invisible group of people is just plain wishful thinking, and I’ve known that since long before I was Catholic.

I believe in God’s promise to preserve His Word, as well as His promise to preserve His church. I just see the possibility that it was done differently than the CC claims it was.

Do you believe that God’s preservation of His words includes the preservation of their meaning, in addition to the words themselves?

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

But it often means, literally, His Word. But the CC claims that His Word is being given to us today THROUGH the CC.

I’m not sure you’ve got the claim of the Catholic Church correct there. Even the Catholic Church holds that public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle, and it also holds that no private revelation can be binding on the Church as a whole. So the Catholic Church continues to proclaim the words of God, not only as written in the Scripture but also as taught by the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:13), but there aren’t new words of God to proclaim.

I have to take the CC’s word for it in order to believe that, b/c Jesus merely tells the Apostles “he who hears you hears me”. There is no promise that he who hears your successors hears me.

Who is more trustworthy, the faithful men appointed by Timothy, Paul’s “true child in the faith,” or self-appointed interpreters of the Bible, such as Menno Simons? If high priests of the Old Testament never took such honor for themselves (Hebrews 5:4) how much should those who claim to be the oracles of God, interpreters of the New Testament likewise be appointed by God and not take such an honor for themselves?

And since we have their writings, and since we (believers) have His Spirit, in that way Jesus IS with us till the end of time.

Jesus certainly promised His Spirit to us, but He didn’t say in Matthew 28, “My Spirit is with your until the end of the age,” He said, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” If you think the Spirit is the fulfilment of that promise, it sounds very cloes to the heresy of Sabellianism (modalism). That’s neither here nor there, since you’ll just note that Christ said, “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst,” but it seemed worth noting so as to avoid in the future the anti-trinitarian implications of the argument you’re making

They may claim to adhere strictly to sola scrip., but they really only adhere to sola JW “scriptura”. They’ve just added to scripture to make it fit their theology.

Which pretty much every Protestant church does. I was raised “Sola Church of Christ Scriptura,” and my friend was raised “Sola Baptist Scriptura” and so on. Everyone adds their own interpretation to Scripture. Everyone. Only the Catholic interpretation, however, holds up to scrutiny.

Jeremy

 

[banarkle]

JoyToBeCathoilc,

You must follow your conscience, even if it has you leave the Church. However, you MUST form/educate your conscience properly.

Truth is not relative to what you can understand, but to what is TRUE. Christ established the Church with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. It is the truth that the Holy Spirit guides and protects. Just as a 4 year-old child trust his father’s answer that 2+2=4, we must trust the Church.

Let me ask you this. If you do not understand how gravity works, will you believe gravity is not present?

 

[HailMary]

I believe the Word of God (that we have in scripture) was not meant for learned men alone.

Some of your confusion most definitely has to do with you thinking the Holy Bible is the Word of God. It is not. The word of God is Jesus Christ.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[mikeledes]

JoytobeCatholic, you need a hug. :hug3: Okay… that’s enough with the mushy stuff. I will keep you in my prayers so that you may live up to your username. Just know that you are in the right Church.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Some of your confusion most definitely has to do with you thinking the Holy Bible is the Word of God. It is not. The word of God is Jesus Christ.

John 1:1

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

What does the “sword of my mouth” refer to?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

JoytobeCatholic, you need a hug. :hug3: Okay… that’s enough with the mushy stuff. I will keep you in my prayers so that you may live up to your username. Just know that you are in the right Church.

God Bless,
Michael

Thanks Michael. And thanks for the prayers.

 

[mikeledes]

Thanks Michael. And thanks for the prayers.

You’re welcome. There are so many competing versions of Christianity that it can be very confusing at times :hypno: . But reading the Bible, the Church Fathers, history, logic, and personal experiences of a spiritual nature have reinforced my belief in the authenticity of the Catholic Church. I trust in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. So be happy that you are in His Church :extrahappy: and defend it against those who attack it :knight2: .

God Bless,
Michael

 

[HailMary]

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

What does the “sword of my mouth” refer to?

The only description of Jesus Christ was is in Revelation:

Revelation 1:12-16

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks: And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. And his head and his hairs were white, as white wool, and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire,
And his feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars. And from his mouth came out a sharp two edged sword: and his face was as the sun shineth in his power.

Kind of interesting, St. John, to whom this apparition was given, was “Jesus’ beloved” and this is how He decided to appear to John. Anyhow, that isn’t what you asked, but let me continue.

The ENTIRE background of God’s communication with Men and the Salvation He has offered has to do with the COVENANT that God made with the Human race. All the covenants are VERY clear: God will bless you if obey the covenant and God will curse you if you don’t obey the covenant.

This can be shown from common sense and from scripture

Leviticus 26:9-16

I will look with favor upon you, and make you fruitful and numerous, as I carry out my covenant with you. So much of the old crops will you have stored up for food that you will have to discard them to make room for the new. I will set my Dwelling among you, and will not disdain you. Ever present in your midst, I will be your God, and you will be my people; for it is I, the LORD, your God, who brought you out of the land of the Egyptians and freed you from their slavery, breaking the yoke they had laid upon you and letting you walk erect. "But if you do not heed me and do not keep all these commandments, if you reject my precepts and spurn my decrees, refusing to obey all my commandments and breaking my covenant, then I, in turn, will give you your deserts. I will punish you with terrible woes–with wasting and fever to dim the eyes and sap the life. You will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will consume the crop.

More on the Covenant can be found in Deuteronomy 28 (btw, I believe Deut. 28 is the longest chapter in the bible)

The context of Revelation is that Jesus Christ is executing COVENANTAL Judgment on those 7 churches (either good or bad).

The double edged sword means that nobody can escape the judgment of Christ. The “fighting” doesn’t mean that Christ is going to come down Himself, in fact, He used pagans to execute the covenantal judgment that was prophesied back in Deut. 28: the Romans destroyed Jersaleum in 70AD.

I hope that answers your question.
If you really want to understand more on the Covenant, you might be interested in this excellent resource:

Understanding the Scriptures: A Complete Course on Bible Study which approaches Scripture using the Covenant as the backbone.

God Bless

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The only description of Jesus Christ was is in Revelation:

Revelation 1:12-16

Kind of interesting, St. John, to whom this apparition was given, was “Jesus’ beloved” and this is how He decided to appear to John. Anyhow, that isn’t what you asked, but let me continue.

The ENTIRE background of God’s communication with Men and the Salvation He has offered has to do with the COVENANT that God made with the Human race. All the covenants are VERY clear: God will bless you if obey the covenant and God will curse you if you don’t obey the covenant.

This can be shown from common sense and from scripture

Leviticus 26:9-16

More on the Covenant can be found in Deuteronomy 28 (btw, I believe Deut. 28 is the longest chapter in the bible)

The context of Revelation is that Jesus Christ is executing COVENANTAL Judgment on those 7 churches (either good or bad).

The double edged sword means that nobody can escape the judgment of Christ. The “fighting” doesn’t mean that Christ is going to come down Himself, in fact, He used pagans to execute the covenantal judgment that was prophesied back in Deut. 28: the Romans destroyed Jersaleum in 70AD.

I hope that answers your question.

:whacky: Maybe I’ve been doing this too long today. I think (but I’m not sure) you may be saying the same thing (?) I never thought it meant literal fighting.

Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This is the sword of Jesus’ mouth.

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

And thanks for the link to the bible study on covenant.

 

[HailMary]

:whacky: Maybe I’ve been doing this too long today. I think (but I’m not sure) you may be saying the same thing (?) I never thought it meant literal fighting.

Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This is the sword of Jesus’ mouth.

Peace

What Scripture say is that

Word of God = Jesus Christ

• two-edged sword = Jesus’ Judgment

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

What Scripture say is that

• Word of God = Jesus Christ
• two-edged sword = Jesus’ Judgment

Ok, I don’t wanna get too o.t. here, but, let’s try that and see:

12For (Jesus Christ) is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any (judgment of Jesus), piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.



Word (or words, as is also sometimes in Scripture) of God does not always = Jesus Christ. Two-edged sword refers to the “weapon” that will be used to bring about Jesus’ judgment.

Peace