Why did Jesus "ascend" into heaven?

[guanophore]

Did you notice that Karen concentrated more on Jesus than on WHEN the church became catholic?

It’s important.

Fran

It is the event that is important. Jesus is not separated from His One Body, the Church, as you seem to believe.

In Eph. 5 we read:

“Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: 26That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.”

Jesus is not separated from His Holy Bride.

Some of your posts have indicated that the Church did not exist during the time of the Apostles. I agree that there was a process involved in the founding of the Church, and it did not happen all in one moment, but the “when” is important to some extent. Either He founded a Church when he was on earth or not. Either the Apostles were the foundation stones, or they were not.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is the event that is important. Jesus is not separated from His One Body, the Church, as you seem to believe.

In Eph. 5 we read:

“Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: 26That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.”

Jesus is not separated from His Holy Bride.

Some of your posts have indicated that the Church did not exist during the time of the Apostles. I agree that there was a process involved in the founding of the Church, and it did not happen all in one moment, but the “when” is important to some extent. Either He founded a Church when he was on earth or not. Either the Apostles were the foundation stones, or they were not.

Jesus did found a church when He was on earth. But, at that time it was the Church, with a capital C. This Church was made up of all who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. The people who belonged to this Church were still Jews. They were still attending the synogages, they were Jews who believed the Messiah had come. It’s not correct to call them Catholics or even Christians at this point.

I’m not one that believes that the Catholic Church was established at the time of Constantine. I believe it was established by the year 100, definitely.

There had been different churches cropping up while Peter and Paul were on their missoinary journeys. I’d say that by the time most of the N.T. books were written, definitely the later ones, like John’s, we could confidently call the true church Catholic, in the sense that we understand CAtholic today, and not in the sense of catholic as universal which is what was meant back then, because the two apostles did speak out about how the church had to be unified.

Some theologians will assert that our Catholic Church came into existence while Jesus was still alive. I don’t see how historically this could be correct if they were still Jewish back then.

But I’m not a historian and do not insist. One may take the position one wants, it’s not dogma. The only dogma is that Jesus is the head of the Church and the Church is His bride and Ephesians does speak to this, as I’m sure you know.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Jesus did found a church when He was on earth.  But, at that time it was the Church, with a capital C.  This Church was made up of all who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.  The people who belonged to this Church were still Jews.  They were still attending the synogages, they were Jews who believed the Messiah had come.

I am glad we can agree on so many important points. It is so refreshing!

It’s not correct to call them Catholics or even Christians at this point.

And by which standard did you determine this? Perhaps they did not call themselves that until Antioch, but they were followers of Jesus - members of The Way. This is His fledgling Church.

I’m not one that believes that the Catholic Church was established at the time of Constantine. I believe it was established by the year 100, definitely.

Whew! More relief for me! At least we are closer to Christ by the year 100. But the Cathoilc Church teaches that Jesus established His One Church during His lifetime on earth.

Perhaps we can agree that Jesus established His One Church, even if it may not have been called “Catholic” until 100?

There had been different churches cropping up while Peter and Paul were on their missoinary journeys. I’d say that by the time most of the N.T. books were written, definitely the later ones, like John’s, we could confidently call the true church Catholic, in the sense that we understand CAtholic today, and not in the sense of catholic as universal which is what was meant back then, because the two apostles did speak out about how the church had to be unified.

Unity comes from adherance to the Truth. All the ecclesial communities that espoused the One Faith of the Apostles were part of the universal Church.

Some theologians will assert that our Catholic Church came into existence while Jesus was still alive. I don’t see how historically this could be correct if they were still Jewish back then.

There was no contradiction at the time. Jesus planned for His Gospel to be the fullfillment of God’s revelation to the Jews. Had His Own people accepted Him, they would have all become “fulfilled Jews”. Instead, the majority rejected Him as Messiah, and around 70 AD those who accepted Jesus as the “Christ” were expelled from the synagogues. But they were “Christian” before that.

But I’m not a historian and do not insist. One may take the position one wants, it’s not dogma. The only dogma is that Jesus is the head of the Church and the Church is His bride and Ephesians does speak to this, as I’m sure you know.

I agree, but the Church also teaches that Jesus established her during His lifetime, and that He only established one Church, and that Church is Catholic.

Thank you for responding to my questions.

 

[Karen107]

Fran guanoph is right, I said all those things about the ascension because it related to the Church. Jesus mission was to start an earthly visible Church which was started with the Apostles. Jesus mission was not completed at the resurrection, it was completed at the ascension. The reason Jesus said this after He rose from the tomb:

John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

This was because He had yet to complete the mission to start an earthly visible Church so that the truths may be known. The Churches mission is to continue on that mission that Jesus started by caring for the poor (as Jesus had) and to preach the gospel to all the ends of the earth. Jesus continued to do His work in starting the Church for the 40 days after the resurrection. Now just because we do not hear the name Catholic written down doesn’t mean that the term wasn’t being used until then or formed by first the Jew than the Gentile to be made One Body of Christ. And we see that formation happening when we read into Acts, ie., the upper room, the evangelization, the behavior of the Church members, the priesthood, the baptism and the other sacraments… Indeed the Catholic Church began upon Jesus and the Apostles that’s why Jesus did not ascend until 40 days after the resurrection. There was still work to be done in starting the Church.

Remember that for the first 300 years of Christianity the Church was being persecuted so it didn’t have the name but none the less was unified. The Church began with first the Jews than the gentiles, as written Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Ephesians 4:4-6

The Jews were no longer Jews when they converted and became baptized. No different from today, when a person is baptized they become Christians. Peter was originally a Jew, but converted and became Christian and a member of the Church for example. And we see Jesus and Peter in dialogue over it. Matthew 16:18, What seems to be confusing you is that the Church did not use the word Catholic to call itself until later. First they were called ‘the Way’ because of how they acted more calmer and peaceful than others in the way of Jesus, but as they went on they called themselves Catholic demonstrating the scope of the Church being Universal including people of all nations.That doesn’t mean they were not people of one Church, an earthly visible Church. In Ephesians 5:25 Jesus refers to the Church as a Bride, now that bride is in union with God and will always be as we see when we celebrate the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which was established by Jesus Christ Himself.

Now we see Jesus saying that this generation will pass away. The generation He spoke of was the Davidic Kingdom because after Jesus died the new Kingdom of God began with the Church. The destruction of the Kingdom was foretold by Jesus… And the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and was never to be rebuilt. Jesus Himself bore all the sins upon Himself when He died starting a new Kingdom upon a new generation, the Church. 1 Peter 2:24

Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

I hope you are not offended because I dont agree… Peace to you my friend…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Karen,

I’m never offended when sticking to the discourse at hand.

I don’t post back and forth, as you’ll find; but I would like you to consider the following.
We kind of have to decide if we want to believe history, or if we’re going to insist that the Catholic Church, as we know it today, existed when Jesus was still with the apostles.

So, I have a few questions for you to consider.

1. The book of Mathew was written for a Jewish audience. We know this because it refers to the O.T. phophecies about 100 times. The book is dated prior to 70 AD because Jerusalem was not destroyed yet, but was probaby written about 20 to 30 years after Jesus resurrection - depending on which theologian you want to believe, but more or less that’s the timetable.
2. The Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah were called The Way, as you mentined in Acts 9. They were called Christians in Acts 10. Christians, not catholics, because it meant Little Christs.
3. The wordl “catholic” means universal in Greek. The word catholic was first used to mean the universal church - or the one church that Jesus established, in the sense that it was universal because Peter and Paul had gone on their missinary journeys and the church was spreading thoughout the known world.

So how do you fit this all together?

Eventually it became known as the Catholic Church, as we mean it today, because it kept being called the catholic church.

This does not take anything away from the fact the Jesus set up His church while on the earth. This does not mean that the Catholic Church, as we understand it today, was created when He gave the keys to Peter. It was HIS church that Jesus was creating and it then became known as the Catholic Church.

I don’t think this is very important to our spiritual knowledge. It’s a historical fact that the first christians were Jewish and not Catholic. They still attended the synagogue. I think we could get carried away by stuff like this and it’s not worth our time.

The only other thing I want to say regards the “generation” in Mathew 24. Do you think it’s the generation of King David? Do you think it might mean the last generation, ever, on earth, since Mathew 24 is an eschatological chapter speaking about the end times?

It’s good to talk about these things…

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Karen,

I’m back. I was doing my work and thinking about this post. It can’t be that we disagree on such a fundamental issue. So I think I know where the problem is.

I’m talking about when the Catholic Church was called this as we mean it today It was called “catholic” back then but to mean “universal” as I said in my previous post.

I think what you’re talking about is that we could TRACE the Catholic Church back to Peter by starting with our present Pope and going all the way back. Could this be it? We might be getting these two concepts mixed up.

You could look this up on the net. After I posted I looked for something that would make sense to both of us. Found some good stuff on EWTN and on Catholic.com

Here something you could read. Also, the first time the term Catholic Church was used was in 107 A.D.:

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because – to adopt a modern expression – she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: “The Church is catholic,” the Catechism teaches, “[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is ‘missionary of her very nature’” (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea’s official documents “the Catholic Church.” As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term “catholic” was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

Fran

 

[Karen107]

Fran this may help you. Jesus is the fulfillment of the scriptures. Jesus did not do away with the OT, rather He fulfilled them So you see the Apostles searched the scriptures and saw that Jesus was indeed the Messiah that they had been waiting for, the Chosen King. There was one point where Jesus was in the temple and pointed to the scriptures Himself teaching them that He was fulfillment of the scriptures.Mark 12, .John 5

But Jesus wasn’t an earthly King as they expected which would help them, Jesus is a heavenly King. He wasn’t like King David full of riches, but one that came from simple backgrounds. So out of Judiasm came the Church which is Isreal restored. So Jesus perfected the religion by transforming it never really doing away with it…You know we say Jesus renewed the face of the earth, this is what we mean… The final Kingdom we are to reach isn’t an earthly one but a heavenly one… Heavenly Jerusalem it’s termed in scripture. Jesus took the best parts of religion and started it over anew which is what we are in the Church…and with the work of the Cross there was a better way to God. Not with the blood of prized animals given up for sins but with His own blood. Hebrews 10 Am i getting somewhere now? I’m still not sure if you see that Jesus started the Catholic Church even though it wasn’t originally named the Catholic Church… It is people who give names… Say the name of God… Someone somewhere decided to call God God, even though God was here all along… In that same way, the Church was present even though it wasn’t originally called the Catholic Church and it is Universal because it is global with no walls between nations…So it is appropriately fitting of the name Universal. Remember the bible captures a glimpse in time surrounding Jesus life on earth, which makes it credible, the Church continued to form and develop after that time.

Lets see…

Jesus…
Jesus gathers 12 apostles to lead the Church with Peter as the head.
The 12 Apostles bring more in so there are hundreds with Peter as head, the first fold…
Peter gets killed so they appoint someone to replace Him… Linus…who reigned 67-76 AD… is mentioned in scripture…2 Timothy 4:21 … This begins apostolic succession of the pope, already seen in scripture (as Matthias replaced Judas) .
The out of the hundreds there are more leaders and more followers, more are brought into the fold…
Then out of Followers there a new leaders added
This continues to happen where more and more people added to the number and the Church is referred to a multitude because of it’s growing in numbers…

So the first generation of Christians were the first fold and with every generation more are brought into the fold. Now there are over a billion belonging to this fold. Every generation is a new fold, which is added to the multitude of the Church. Think of a fold as those you can wrap your arms around… Your generation… though it’s so big it would be hard to wrap your arms around a million people literally, but you can spiritually…

There never was a break in succession, only more added to the original apostles fold (generation)… Fold originally termed when the Apostles knew those who surrounded them in the faith… There’s no Jew or Gentil anymore, only the Church… The Church started with the Jews, than added in gentiles (non Jews) and continues to add gentiles… non Jews. It doesn’t change it’s foundational beliefs, it only adds more to the numbers.Galatians 3:28

 

[Karen107]

Fran, the only reason I feel the need to share with you is that it is important that you understand the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church. Jesus directly gave the leaders of our Church, the Priests, the authority to forgive sins . If you don’t believe in that, you might as well not believe that the Priests have the authority to forgive sins and there was no reason for Jesus to even start an earthly Church…Jesus started the Church out of love for us, so that we would ‘know’ that we are forgiven instead of just believing that we are forgiven.We are not just spiritual souls we are physical human beings with feelings and emotions. We are told after confession by our Priests, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ I absolve you of your sins’…That’s huge for the healing of a human soul!!

 

[Todd977]

Perfect. Jesus had to leave so the H.S. could come to stay with us.

In the same book mentioned in my earlier post, Pope Benedict doesn’t talk so about the relationship between Jesus’ Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit but, because of the book’s concentration on Jesus, emphasizes the “great variety of ways” that Jesus himself now comes close to us since his Ascension, including “in the sacraments, especially the most Holy Eucharist.” (page 291)

 

[frangiuliano115]

In the same book mentioned in my earlier post, Pope Benedict doesn’t talk so about the relationship between Jesus’ Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit but, because of the book’s concentration on Jesus, emphasizes the “great variety of ways” that Jesus himself now comes close to us since his Ascension, including “in the sacraments, especially the most Holy Eucharist.” (page 291)

Yes. Of course. Jesus didn’t abandon us. It’s just said the He had to leave so the Holy Spirit could come because Jesus was present physically in the small area of Israel and to the people He was with, apostles and disciples and others who did not even believe - He was seen by many.

So He had to leave that small geographical area so the Holy Spirit could come to dwell in man all over the world. Only in this sense is this understood. Jesus is present in the host at communion, in the Santissimo (can’t think of the english word right now), the sacraments, and is really present in the world in general. But it’s the H.S. that dwells within us as our paraclete, comforter, instructor, etc. Jesus did say to wait in Jerusalem till the H.S. descended upon the disciples - for strength and conviction so they could carry out their mission.

Thanks for chance to clarify.

Fran
p.s. I have the book. A friend is reading it also and says it’s really good. It’s next on my list.

 

[guanophore]

 I would like you to consider the following.

We kind of have to decide if we want to believe history, or if we’re going to insist that** the Catholic Church, as we know it today, existed when Jesus was still with the apostles.**

No one has claimed this, Fran. This is an assumption you have made, based on your erroneous perception of what has been said. You are assuming a poster holds a position you have imagined, then you assign that position to the other person. Then you respond against it this imaginary position. This is called a strawman argument.

Of course the CC did not exist as we know it today when Jesus was still with the Apostles! It was a tiny mustard seed then, and now it is a huge tree! It is hardly recognizable.

So, I have a few questions for you to consider.

1. The book of Mathew was written for a Jewish audience. We know this because it refers to the O.T. phophecies about 100 times. The book is dated prior to 70 AD because Jerusalem was not destroyed yet, but was probaby written about 20 to 30 years after Jesus resurrection - depending on which theologian you want to believe, but more or less that’s the timetable.

:thumbsup:2. The Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah were called The Way, as you mentined in Acts 9. They were called Christians in Acts 10. Christians, not catholics, because it meant Little Christs.

1. The wordl “catholic” means universal in Greek. The word catholic was first used to mean the universal church - or the one church that Jesus established, in the sense that it was universal because Peter and Paul had gone on their missinary journeys and the church was spreading thoughout the known world.

So how do you fit this all together?

How do you NOT!?

 Eventually it became known as the Catholic Church, as we mean it today, because it kept being called the catholic church.

It was the only church founded by Christ.

 This does not take anything away from the fact the Jesus set up His church while on the earth.   **This does not mean that the Catholic Church, as we understand it today, was created when He gave the keys to Peter. ** It was HIS church that Jesus was creating and it then became known as the Catholic Church.

Here is where your theory departs from what the Catechism teaches.

567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. “This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ” (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

What we see in the NT is the seed of the Catholic Church, founded upon Peter, with Christ as her Cornerstone. They keys have been passed faithfully to each successor of Peter, who has the responsibility to feed and care for His flock.

I don’t think this is very important to our spiritual knowledge. It’s a historical fact that the first christians were Jewish and not Catholic. They still attended the synagogue. I think we could get carried away by stuff like this and it’s not worth our time.

We can disagree about the importance of how the Church was founded, but I personally find it problematic when a person who represents themselves on CAF as a catechist contradicts the Catechism.

Yes, it is an historical fact that the first Christians were Jews. They became Catholic when they began celebrating the Eucharist after His resurrection. Most of them practiced their Jewish faith alongside their Christian faith, since they do not contradict each other. After Peter baptized Cornelius, Greek and Romans became Catholic as well as Jews. The council of Jerusalem wrote letters to communities made of mixed Jews and Gentiles. They were all Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

 I was doing my work and thinking about this post. It can't be that we disagree on such a fundamental issue.  So I think I know where the problem is.

I’m talking about when the Catholic Church was called this as we mean it today It was called “catholic” back then but to mean “universal” as I said in my previous post.

I think what you’re talking about is that we could TRACE the Catholic Church back to Peter by starting with our present Pope and going all the way back. Could this be it? We might be getting these two concepts mixed up.

I am really glad to see you trying to figure out what another post may mean, rather than forcing your idea into the discussion. No one has suggested that “the CC as we mean today” existed at the time of the Apostles.

Yes, we can trace the one church founded by Christ back to Peter, starting with our present Pope all the way back. However, for those who accept the Teachings of the Church, there is no “two concepts” to mix. The CC has certainly grown and changed a great deal over time.

 You could look this up on the net.  After I posted I looked for something that would make sense to both of us.  Found some good stuff on EWTN and on Catholic.com

Theological research on the internet!

Here something you could read. Also, the first time the term Catholic Church was used was in 107 A.D.:

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because – to adopt a modern expression – she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).

I am glad we can agree on these important points.
frangiuliano115;13438559:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: “The Church is catholic,” the Catechism teaches, “[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is ‘missionary of her very nature’” (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea’s official documents “the Catholic Church.” As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term “catholic” was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

Fran

Good job Fran! You have greatly alleviated my fears.

 

[guanophore]

Fran guanoph is right, I said all those things about the ascension because it related to the Church. Jesus mission was to start an earthly visible Church which was started with the Apostles. Jesus mission was not completed at the resurrection, it was completed at the ascension. The reason Jesus said this after He rose from the tomb:

Jesus continued to do His work in starting the Church for the 40 days after the resurrection. Now just because we do not hear the name Catholic written down doesn’t mean that the term wasn’t being used until then or formed by first the Jew than the Gentile to be made One Body of Christ. And we see that formation happening when we read into Acts, ie., the upper room, the evangelization, the behavior of the Church members, the priesthood, the baptism and the other sacraments… Indeed the Catholic Church began upon Jesus and the Apostles that’s why Jesus did not ascend until 40 days after the resurrection. There was still work to be done in starting the Church.

This is why I say the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics! It is a product of the Church, founded by Christ, which is Catholic.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I am really glad to see you trying to figure out what another post may mean, rather than forcing your idea into the discussion. No one has suggested that “the CC as we mean today” existed at the time of the Apostles.

Yes, we can trace the one church founded by Christ back to Peter, starting with our present Pope all the way back. However, for those who accept the Teachings of the Church, there is no “two concepts” to mix. The CC has certainly grown and changed a great deal over time.

Theological research on the internet!

I am glad we can agree on these important points.

Good job Fran! You have greatly alleviated my fears.

My post was for Karen. But it was for everyone else too.

Always happy to alleviate your fears.
I work so hard at it.

 

[Karen107]

To the topic of the OP. Jesus ascended into heaven to be with the Father. TimothyH answered this early on. Jesus was enthroned and was placed on the judgment seat and serves as intermediary to the Father. He continues to do the Will of the Father by Praying for us in heaven just as He had on earth as our High Priest and cleansing us of our sins. He did not leave us though, He is just as present to us as the Holy Spirit, that is because, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and calls us into communion with them in heaven… Jesus calls us to a greater purpose and that is to serve the Lord God by serving others, this is Gods will for us on earth, in heaven it will be Gods will for us to pray for others… On earth as well as in heaven.

To say that Jesus left so that the Paraclete can come would be to say that Jesus left and didn’t remain with us. Jesus remains with us as He promised. The HS is not the only teacher and advocate. Jesus Himself is our teacher and Advocate who lives to make intercession for us in heaven… It is written in this scripture.

Hebrews 7:20 This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, 21 but this one became a priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him,

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever’”—
22 accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.

23 Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;** 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.**

26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

So the way to heaven is through Jesus who is in heaven…Jesus being the way and the truth and the life, ** John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. **

Jesus drawing us up to the Father from His heavenly throne where continues to do God the Fathers will by praying for us…Imagine Jesus praying for us while on earth…Then imagine Jesus still praying for Us only from the heavenly heights where our hearts are lifted up to when Jesus is lifted up on the altar… If Jesus never ascended into heaven, our souls wouldn’t be lifted up, it would stay on earth with Jesus… No, Jesus needed to be lifted up to heaven in order to have our minds, heart, and bodies lifted up to heaven towards Him… Because as Jesus is lifted up He draws men to Him…

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

And as St. Paul says… Colossians 3:2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

We should always direct our minds up to God… That’s why Jesus ascended into heaven, He showed us the way to our heavenly home with God as Our Father in Heaven…

I hope you all don’t mind me writing so much but so much of this is going through my mind and I feel compelled to share… God bless you all and May Christ give you His peace…! +++

 

[Karen107]

This is why I say the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics! It is a product of the Church, founded by Christ, which is Catholic.

Dear Guanophore… I think this about what Fran says… Yes from an earthly standpoint it was written for the Church, but Jesus did not come just for those in the Church, Jesus came for all. The bible has brought people into communion with Him outside of the Church, I don’t believe we can deny that, but in coming in communion with Jesus they come in communion with us through their baptism into the same spirit of God… We may not want to accept that, but it is a good thing… it means that the work of the Church in putting forth the bible not only affected us as Catholics, but it has affected all because it is the true written word of God. That is what gets me about the scriptures… . We can’t take claim to it and keep it to ourselves, it must be shared with the world so that all would come to know Jesus even if they don’t see eye to eye with the Church. Who knows one day they will??. Jesus teaches us about that as well…

Anyone Not Against Us Is for Us
Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Dear Fran may be a soldier for Christ who is continually reminding us that there are others who are on a path to truth as well and I see good in that. They may see what we believe as legalism where we do not, we see it as part of our life in the body. Who knows there may be people sitting in our own pews who don’t ‘get it’ and choose to walk away like those who did at the Last Supper, but then there may be someone who sparks their faith on the outside and we can rejoice in that! … People may not see things through the same lens that we do but they are also soldiers for Christ none-the-less and we love them. Peace…

 

[guanophore]

Dear Guanophore… I think this about what Fran says… Yes from an earthly standpoint it was written for the Church, but Jesus did not come just for those in the Church, Jesus came for all. The bible has brought people into communion with Him outside of the Church, I don’t believe we can deny that, but in coming in communion with Jesus they come in communion with us through their baptism into the same spirit of God… We may not want to accept that, but it is a good thing… it means that the work of the Church in putting forth the bible not only affected us as Catholics, but it has affected all because it is the true written word of God. That is what gets me about the scriptures… . We can’t take claim to it and keep it to ourselves, it must be shared with the world so that all would come to know Jesus even if they don’t see eye to eye with the Church. Who knows one day they will??. Jesus teaches us about that as well…

Anyone Not Against Us Is for Us
Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Dear Fran may be a soldier for Christ who is continually reminding us that there are others who are on a path to truth as well and I see good in that. They may see what we believe as legalism where we do not, we see it as part of our life in the body. Who knows there may be people sitting in our own pews who don’t ‘get it’ and choose to walk away like those who did at the Last Supper, but then there may be someone who sparks their faith on the outside and we can rejoice in that! … People may not see things through the same lens that we do but they are also soldiers for Christ none-the-less and we love them. Peace…

 

[catholic1seeks]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that heaven is not a physical place, up in the sky or anywhere else.

Yet when Jesus allegedly goes to Heaven, the Bible says that he “ascends” up into the sky. Acts 1:9: “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” So, he didn’t fade from view, or disappear. He rose up into the sky like someone riding an elevator.

In that case, three possibilities that I see:
1 - Despite Church teaching and common sense, heaven is somewhere up in the sky. Ridiculous on its face.
2 - Jesus ascended into the sky, mostly for show, in order to give the Apostles a more visual sense for what had happened. Plausible, but seems a bit off to me.
3 - Whether or not Jesus actually died and was resurrected, the Apostles (with a primitive concept of what something like heaven would be like) fabricated the story, either as part of a larger fabrication regarding the resurrection, or simply to bolster the credibility of the resurrection that they had actually witnesses. Seems the most likely explanation; their primitive explanation has now been overtaken by more sophisticated understanding of what something like heaven would be like.

Thoughts?

It’s true you don’t get to Heaven by leaving the atmosphere. This is something that bothered me about the beautiful and fairly new movie The 13th Day, which is about the Fatima apparitions. In one scene, a light flies through the sky, depicting Mary coming to the three children. But it was as if the Virgin Mary were traveling by space ship. It was kind of funny.

Anyway. I think the depiction of the Ascension is a very sacramental scene. It fits well with how Jesus acted. He did plenty of things that did not seem to be necessary in order to accomplish a certain divine effect. At one time, if you remember, Jesus used his spit and some mud to cure a blind man. Was there something about his spit or the mud that allowed the man to be healed of his blindness? Most likely not! But we know Christianity, and Christ’s life, to be fully sacramental – filled with signs, symbols, and the material that accomplishes and points to the divine. Jesus is, after all, God made FLESH. Think about the sacraments. Jesus chooses water to be the ordinary vehicle of salvation, and he chooses bread and wine as means to come to feed us!

What’s more, and in relation to this, the ancient Jewish idea of reality was that the land was flat, and the firmament above existed in the shape of a semi-sphere. We may know now that Heaven is not “up,” but to the Jewish people, it was understood that God existed above the skies. Jesus was a Jew and lived and preached in an ancient Jewish culture and context. If the Apostles saw Christ ascending up into the sky, I think they would have gotten a pretty good idea of what was happening.

I mean just look at this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vtvKWVLrcng

Just think about how memorable, how sacramental that moment must have been! I think that clip from AD: The Bible Continues is a great way for us to imagine what it must have been like.​

 

[frangiuliano115]

Dear Guanophore… I think this about what Fran says… Yes from an earthly standpoint it was written for the Church, but Jesus did not come just for those in the Church, Jesus came for all. The bible has brought people into communion with Him outside of the Church, I don’t believe we can deny that, but in coming in communion with Jesus they come in communion with us through their baptism into the same spirit of God… We may not want to accept that, but it is a good thing… it means that the work of the Church in putting forth the bible not only affected us as Catholics, but it has affected all because it is the true written word of God. That is what gets me about the scriptures… . We can’t take claim to it and keep it to ourselves, it must be shared with the world so that all would come to know Jesus even if they don’t see eye to eye with the Church. Who knows one day they will??. Jesus teaches us about that as well…

Anyone Not Against Us Is for Us
Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Dear Fran may be a soldier for Christ who is continually reminding us that there are others who are on a path to truth as well and I see good in that. They may see what we believe as legalism where we do not, we see it as part of our life in the body. Who knows there may be people sitting in our own pews who don’t ‘get it’ and choose to walk away like those who did at the Last Supper, but then there may be someone who sparks their faith on the outside and we can rejoice in that! … People may not see things through the same lens that we do but they are also soldiers for Christ none-the-less and we love them. Peace…

Thank you Karen. It’s nice to be understood.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

It’s true you don’t get to Heaven by leaving the atmosphere. This is something that bothered me about the beautiful and fairly new movie The 13th Day, which is about the Fatima apparitions. In one scene, a light flies through the sky, depicting Mary coming to the three children. But it was as if the Virgin Mary were traveling by space ship. It was kind of funny.

Anyway. I think the depiction of the Ascension is a very sacramental scene. It fits well with how Jesus acted. He did plenty of things that did not seem to be necessary in order to accomplish a certain divine effect. At one time, if you remember, Jesus used his spit and some mud to cure a blind man. Was there something about his spit or the mud that allowed the man to be healed of his blindness? Most likely not! But we know Christianity, and Christ’s life, to be fully sacramental – filled with signs, symbols, and the material that accomplishes and points to the divine. Jesus is, after all, God made FLESH. Think about the sacraments. Jesus chooses water to be the ordinary vehicle of salvation, and he chooses bread and wine as means to come to feed us!

What’s more, and in relation to this, the ancient Jewish idea of reality was that the land was flat, and the firmament above existed in the shape of a semi-sphere. We may know now that Heaven is not “up,” but to the Jewish people, it was understood that God existed above the skies. Jesus was a Jew and lived and preached in an ancient Jewish culture and context. If the Apostles saw Christ ascending up into the sky, I think they would have gotten a pretty good idea of what was happening.

I mean just look at this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vtvKWVLrcng

Just think about how memorable, how sacramental that moment must have been! I think that clip from AD: The Bible Continues is a great way for us to imagine what it must have been like.​

Very beautiful catholic1seeks.

I think you’ve found!

Let us understand Jesus in this wonderfully spiritual way you’ve described and edify each other instead of arguing with each other over what, compared to the above, are trivialities.

Fran