Why do you believe what you believe?

[eddie_too]

yes, Jesus’ glorifed body is the same and only body He has transformed, from its original subjection to sin and its accompanying consequences, in to a body not subjected to sin and its consequences for human beings.

the glorified body is a mystery, but we do have some information about it.

it can consume food. it can be touched. it can make itself incorporeal so that it can pass through locked doors. it can speak so that other human bodies can hear. it can see. the mortal body must die before it can be transformed into a glorified body.

its a mystery but not a complete mystery.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t think it’s an outright rejection, i.e., they profess to believe in the God of Abraham, i.e., they are attempting to worship the true God/Creator (the Greeks were polytheists), however, imperfectly.

p.s. What is your stance on Jews who also reject the Holy Trinity as revealed by Jesus Christ? What “god” are they worshiping?

p.p.s. Even if they worship only part of the Trinity, at least they acknowledge a part of it and deem it worthy of worship. They have not entirely rejected God, i.e., they need to be evangelized so that they may come to the full knowledge of the God they profess to believe in so they can worship Him perfectly.

Mormons profess the God of Abraham, a lot of strange groups profess the God of Abraham but their mere profession shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that they are truly worshipping God. God needs to be worshipped in spirit and truth, the only exception is when one worships this God in ignorance but then you don’t really know God and he is utterly unknown to you, therefore you say little about this God who is unknown and has yet to reveal himself to you.

As far as the Jews are concerned they deny Jesus and thus deny God. The Christian in my opinion should not treat the jew as if they worship the same God, for in denying Christ who is God as Lord there is the rejection of God. They are not worshipping imperfectly, they are not worshipping God at all but rather a false view of God. I would say the same of all Unitarians who deny the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now I would ask how does one acknowledging a part of the trinity therefore mean they are worshipping a part of the trinity? The trinity cannot be worshipped in parts for there are no parts in God, the son cannot be separated from the father in substance and so to deny the son is to essentially deny the father. Knowing of this God, basic figures of the father son and spirit helps and they may move from Unitarianism to trinitarianism but until they confess the Nicene creed in my opinion they are not worshipping the same God as Christians.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I had those kinds of parents who didn’t impose a religious upbringing on me. I may be oddest duck around, because in retrospect, I wish they had. My mom was a cultural Lutheran being 1/2 Norwegian and 1/2 German. Whenever my Grandma would stay with us, we went to church with her, and even Sunday school This was when I was very young. I guess I always believed in God. Even instinctually. But what that meant, changed many times over my life. Without parental direction, from the time I was about 12, until I was in my 30’s I opened myself up to virtually every new age pop religion someone was putting out there. I’d put on their shoes, test them out both experientially, and by study of their literature or traditions. I remember cleaning a church of scientology when I was 11 or 12 in exchange for “auditing”. The next stop was mystic Buddhism, a’la T. Lonsang Rhampa. I tried his astral projection stuff. It didn’t work. I still learned to meditate a bit, and self identified as a “Buddhist” for a good long time. The next serious stop for me was Yaqi mysticism through Carlos Castaneda. Next up, “The Urantia Book”. This phase was fairly long. 20 - 30 years old I’d say. I took two short breaks in mysticism and Urantia stuff for two brief stints with the protestants. A few months with the Lutherans, and a few months with the Southern Baptists. I was baptized by the Baptists. Learned a little more about Jesus, and it was pretty interesting. Still. No meat to sink my teeth into ultimately. My fault. Not theirs.
When I got into my 30’s, reason started to kick in. I started actually reading some fairly heavy philosophy and theology. Mostly Buddhist or Early Greek. A lot of Aristotle. I also found a sect of Buddhism called Jodo Shinshu which I fell for big time. I ended up taking vows, and for the first time was “confirmed” in a church. I was now a Jodo Shinshu Buddhist. It would be the only religion I would practice or even entertain for 10 years. I attended temple. I studied the texts. I meditated. I chanted the Nembutsu. I was at home. But even then, something was missing.
In about 2004, I made a friend a work who was a Methodist Christian. He was attending a bible study which was an intense affair, and whenever we were on break or lunch at work we found ourselves having comparative discussions about Buddhism vs. Christianity. At first, I thought I had a lot share with him, but after our first few times in discussions, I found myself much more interested in Jesus than what I had to counter with from my Buddhist practice. I took to reading the Bible again. This time, focusing on the Gospels, and even meditating on the Gospels. I was in a state of conversion, but in a little denial about it. At the end of 2004, I was transferred across country. I flew the family to our new home, and I drove out on my own. During the 3 day drive, I was very reflective about Christ, and could almost hear Him talking to me. I “prayed”, instead of chanting. At a truck stop, I was literally led to an audio book by Scott Hahn called “The Lamb’s Supper”. The cover seemed to indicate it was about the mystical book of Revelation, and the Christian notion of Eucharist. Not sure I even knew it was Catholic. This sounded like an interesting read/listen. And it WAS!! I listened to the entire book, (which is fairly short) three times. When I got to my new home, I couldn’t wait to get to a Catholic mass. I talked to my wife about it (she was Atheist). I explained how different Buddhism and Christianity were. I explained how I now knew why my previous attempts at Christianity had failed. It was sacraments. The sacraments that Jesus Christ, (who I had come to believe was in fact God born among us in human history), instituted with His apostles. I then enrolled (with my atheist wife) in RCIA at our local parish. We began attending mass, and I began reading Catholic Christian documents as fast as I could turn the pages. I started reading the Bible in an whole new light. I watched the dawning conversion from anti God to Catholic Christianity in my wife. I read Kreeft, Chesterton, Hahn, Sheed, Aquinas, Augustine. Lives of Saints. I began praying the Rosary. I was enriching my mind and softening my heart. When the priest would hold up the transfigured host in Mass, I looked upon it with such longing and hunger that I counted myself as blessed that I would someday soon be able to join my brothers and sisters at Christ’s table and be able to eat His body and drink His blood, as He gave for us to do. This was John, chapter 6 unfolding before my eyes!! I started spending time in front of the Eucharist in the meantime, learning about the real presence. I and my wife were brought into full communion with the Church on Easter vigil, April 15, 2006. Right now, I am the sponsor for my 80 year old mother in law in RCIA, who was a life-long and generational Church of Christ member. What a gift!

So, it was a “feeling” journey. It was a mystical journey. There is faith. But there was and continues to be a lot of study, reason and intellect involved too. Faith and reason. I have come to believe, by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, that this is the Church which our blessed Lord founded upon His apostle Simon, renamed Peter, (our first Pope), and that has continued it’s visual presence through the ages. We can find written evidence of all this by connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament, then moving on to the historians, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and Bishops to this very day. To the Parish right down your street!! It is without doubt, to the heart, soul, and intellect the only Church which bears the four marks of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. We get there different ways, but hopefully we will all get there. This is my prayer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

God bless,

Steve

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You don’t know what happened to His physical body. There was a physical body crucifixion, then there was a glorified body resurrection.

How do you know the glorified body was not a part of the physical body and it got separated after death, leaving the physical body behind?

.

Because all the gospels tell us the tomb is empty and Christ has been risen. Christians do not accept the gnostic interpretation of the New testament in which everything is given an allegorized meaning. Christ was truely risen from the dead.

 

[eddie_too]

i thnk the answer to the question posed by this thread for most RCs and many other christians is that they believe completely and solely because they were given the gift of faith by God.

most of our posts in this thread have gone on to reasons and facts that support the faith we have or explain what we believe; but ultimately and most essentially, faith in Jesus is completely and without any reservations a gift from God.

we did not deserve it. we did not earn it. we did not acquire it through our own efforts.

that is not to deny that God acted in our lives in ways that influenced us toward Him even before we believed. yet, first and foremost, God acted in our lives.

 

[josie_L]

Mormons profess the God of Abraham, a lot of strange groups profess the God of Abraham but their mere profession shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that they are truly worshipping God. God needs to be worshipped in spirit and truth, the only exception is when one worships this God in ignorance but then you don’t really know God and he is utterly unknown to you, therefore you say little about this God who is unknown and has yet to reveal himself to you.

The Mormons are polytheists (they do not worship just the God of Abraham), i.e., the Church does not regard them as Christians. And Unitarians are heretics, i.e., Muslims cannot be called heretics per se.

As far as the Jews are concerned they deny Jesus and thus deny God. The Christian in my opinion should not treat the jew as if they worship the same God, for in denying Christ who is God as Lord there is the rejection of God. They are not worshipping imperfectly, they are not worshipping God at all but rather a false view of God. I would say the same of all Unitarians who deny the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Because Jews are worshiping him imperfectly does not mean that they are not worshiping Him at all, this view is not scriptural!

Now I would ask how does one acknowledging a part of the trinity therefore mean they are worshipping a part of the trinity? The trinity cannot be worshipped in parts for there are no parts in God, the son cannot be separated from the father in substance and so to deny the son is to essentially deny the father. Knowing of this God, basic figures of the father son and spirit helps and they may move from Unitarianism to trinitarianism but until they confess the Nicene creed in my opinion they are not worshipping the same God as Christians.

I am not trying to separate God, i.e., I am not denying the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, but making reference to the three distinct persons. Muslims seem to recognize the distinct person of the Father (even if this view of God is incomplete). They are from their point of view trying to worship the God that we do, but, as you said it is not the same God in that they have an incomplete view of who they are worshiping. Moreover, the CCC is not saying that they worship the SAME God (as in the same God that was revealed through Christianity), but that they profess to be worshiping the “the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

Thank you for the question!

Heaven is a state of being, defined by the Beatific Vision. It isn’t a place. It is therefore best defined, if I am to support one of your terms, as a “spiritual condition”. The best description of heaven still has to be Pope Benedict XII’s definition from 1336, which is de fide (dogmatically binding) or in other words an exercise of papal infallibility (ex cathedra) and clarifies it as wholly spiritual in nature:

This “intuitive vision” of the Essence of God enjoyed by the blessed, which is what heaven really is, does not consist of seeing with “physical” eyes as St. Thomas Aquinas explained:

newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

(continued…)

Indeed when Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa wrote a commentary on the Qur’an in Latin during the fifteenth century, primarily for the pope to read and understand Islam in light of the Turkish conquest of Byzantium, he interpreted the ayats about paradise as metaphors and found it impossible to understand why so many Muslims believed in a “physical” heaven. Cusa argues that Muhammad was simply trying to teach the Arabs, through earthly imagery, that every desire would be satisfied in Paradise - yet not literally:

So we have NEVER believed in a “physical” heaven.

Since glorified bodies, as I explained here in my last post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11567083&postcount=232 do not rely for their sustenance on the non-glorified creation, they do not need to be contained in this material universe but can exist without a “containing space”. Glorified bodies can therefore exist outside spatial time in the state of “heaven” just as bodiless spirits, such as angels and humans before the glorified resurrection of the dead after Christ’s “second coming”, also can.

Angels are in the state of heaven but do not have glorified bodies, they are simply bodiless spirits. God Himself is “heaven”, since to be in “heaven” is to see Him as He Is in Himself without intermediary, and God is not physical in essence - in essence He is Divine, pure spirit, as He is in the Persons of the Father and Holy Spirit. Even after God the Son assumed human nature, the divine and human natures in Jesus do not “mix”, the Person of Son simply “added” a human nature. His divine nature is still not “human” but pure “Spirit”.

Angels are in essence spirits, made to be disembodied spirits. Animals are in essence material creatures, made to be physical. Human beings are neither. We are in essence a combination of matter and spirit. We live in this world like animals but our spiritual soul longs for the Presence of God.

For humans to experience death like all other living things and thus be separated from their bodies is not in Christian theology seen as intrinsically good, as the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom explains:

Man’s body was designed for “glorification”, his bodily impulses subjugated to his higher spiritual ones. However in practice, man choose to obey his animal instincts. Experiencing death like the animals is a consequence of this.

Christ’s resurrection heals this and gives man the opportunity, like him, to ascend to God beyond time and place in the state of heaven, with his whole being “body and soul”.

This is a wonderful post.

I will ponder and reflect its contents for a while, and post some thoughts dear brother.

You are a fountain

God bless you!

 

[betsybug354]

So, it was a “feeling” journey. It was a mystical journey. There is faith. But there was and continues to be a lot of study, reason and intellect involved too. Faith and reason. I have come to believe, by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, that this is the Church which our blessed Lord founded upon His apostle Simon, renamed Peter, (our first Pope), and that has continued it’s visual presence through the ages. We can find written evidence of all this by connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament, then moving on to the historians, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and Bishops to this very day. To the Parish right down your street!! It is without doubt, to the heart, soul, and intellect the only Church which bears the four marks of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. We get there different ways, but hopefully we will all get there. This is my prayer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

God bless,

Steve

Wow Steve, what a wild and wonderful ride of faith you have been on! And I thought my faith journey covered a lot of bases, from Methodist to almost-became-a-Muslim to Calvinist to Lutheran to Catholic. I am still on the journey to the Catholic church, but it gave me chills when I read about your deep desire to partake of the Blessed Sacrament! I was on the St. Louis archdiocese’s website yesterday and watched their 15-minute video about the Church that was produced in 1999 when Blessed John Paul II visited here. I started bawling like a baby when I heard him speaking to the crowds and blessing people on the video - so very emotional. I remember feeling the same way back in 1999 when the local news stations preempted regular programming to broadcast his visit. Imagine, a little country Protestant girl feeling that way about the Holy Father! I couldn’t explain it at the time, but I know now that my heart’s desire was to experience the fullness and depth of the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit continues to tug at my heart to come into the RCC; I’m just taking things very slowly due to the fact that I’m very invested in Lutheran education with my 12-year-old son right now. God bless!

 

[Servant19]

In terms of “clouds” being a metaphor for “Glory” I’m sure that many Baha’is on here will probably see in this respect further vindication for their belief that Baha’u’llah (The Glory of God) is the Second Coming of Christ.

I should make it clear that I would categorically reject this interpretation

The Bible tells us that as soon as Christ’s comes again, “everyone” will know instantly and the New Heavens and Earth will come into being. It is the traditional view of Catholics and Orthodox Christians that the second coming will be a sudden and unmistakable incident, like “a flash of lightning”.[Mt 24:27] They hold the general view that Jesus will not spend any time on the earth in ministry or preaching. He will appear to ALL in a single instant. He will not physically walk on the earth again and preach and talk. He will just appear, His Return will be known to all through a glorious miracle and in that instant everything will change. It will happen in an instant. In a blink of the eye.

To my mind, Baha’u’llah’s “coming” did not happen in this way. In this respect he cannot be the Jesus Christ we are expecting, despite all his many noble teachings. He declared himself to be a Manifestation of God in 1863 and this was not instantly known by every single human being alive. Even today, there are some people who have never heard of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i Faith took many years to spread the message of Baha’u’llah’s advent. This is not consistent with how the Bible or Sacred Tradition describes the Second Coming of Jesus.

“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27)

And again:

*Matthew 24:30 *- “all the tribes of the earth … will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven”

*Revelation 1:*7 - “Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him”

In the same way we do not know how he will “be revealed” when he returns. The Bible tells us that the “Sign of the Son of Man” will appear and he will come again. In that instant a New Universe will come into being.

This did not happen in 1863. Baha’u’llah’s Declaration was not immediately known from “East to West”. Every single human being did not suddenly declare, “The Messiah has returned! I see him!” I don’t see any evidence of ordinary life across the whole world being disrupted in 1863. It just doesn’t fit what the Bible teaches and how the Church, with Sacred Tradition, has always understood what the Second Coming of Christ would be like and mean.

Rather Baha’u’llah’s message took many years to spread, and still to this day there will be people who haven’t heard of him. Paul said that we will all “be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”.

Jesus, now that He is Risen, cannot and will not return to ordinary life and live among us. Catholics believe this and the Bible and Sacred Tradition attest too it.

As a result, Baha’u’llah does not fit the bill for us since he is not Christ in His glorified form but a mortal man leading a mortal life just like Jesus did before His resurrection. This is not the Second Coming, Jesus will not lead another human life among men. He is glorified above all time and place.

This is why Jesus warned people to ignore any reports that He had returned and was somewhere on the earth. People will appear and do miracles on the earth (Matt. 24:23-27), but Jesus will remain in the “clouds”, that is exalted above all creation, time and space in His glorified state, and when he comes again it will be for the purpose of a “New Heavens and a New Earth”, not to lead a mortal life and die again.

I commend the Baha’is for correctly seeing that the “clouds” in the ascension accounts do not refer so much to physical clouds as they are linguistic indicators of the “Manifest Presence” and “Glory” of God. However it is after this that I must part ways with them as a Catholic.

I hope that my understanding in this respect has been sufficiently described by me.

Dear brother Vouthon.

I quote above one of your earlier posts, because I am trying to gain a holistic understanding of what is being communicated here.

You state clearly in your post above that He will return and "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man"

plus, "and every eye will see him"

and as we have established He will return as He did with His Ascension, namely in Glory (which is the meaning of “cloud”)

If I may ask, how do you reconcile all this with Luke 17:24?

24 For as the lightning that lighteneth from under heaven, shineth unto the parts that are under heaven, so shall the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation.
26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

…when read in the context of Matthew 23:34…(to provide a context and understanding for “this generation”)

Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

Is “you” and “this generation” a generic term for those that persecute and reject the Divine?

.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear brother Vouthon.

I quote above one of your earlier posts, because I am trying to gain a holistic understanding of what is being communicated here.

You state clearly in your post above that He will return and "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man"

plus, "and every eye will see him"

and as we have established He will return as He did with His Ascension, namely in Glory (which is the meaning of “cloud”)

If I may ask, how do you reconcile all this with Luke 17:24?

…when read in the context of Matthew 23:34…(to provide a context and understanding for “this generation”)

Is “you” and “this generation” a generic term for those that persecute and reject the Divine?

.

Dear Servant,

Thank, brother, for your post!

I do not interpret these terms as generic, “no”, nor would the church. I think that Jesus is referring very specifically to the generation of the apostles which terminated with the death of the last of them around 80 AD.

 

[shortfuse]

Why do I believe what I believe? Because Scripture confirms my state of being…a sinner in need of repentance. I, at one time, would try to work for my salvation, Scripture teaches it’s God’s grace and I don’t have to work for it, eliminating my guilt, thinking that I haven’t done enough. God chose me, I didn’t choose Him, because I was at enmity with God. My faith is not my own, “God gives to each a measure of faith”, I could not sustain this faith in my own human will, “All that the Father gives Me, I will not loose any” Jesus holds on to me. Jesus has given me everything for faith. Scriptures says “we have all the riches in Christ Jesus” Now, why do you believe what you believe?

 

[Servant19]

Dear Servant,

Thank, brother, for your post!

I do not interpret these terms as generic, “no”, nor would the church. I think that Jesus is referring very specifically to the generation of the apostles which terminated with the death of the last of them around 80 AD.

Thank you again brother

When we look at Exodus 19:16 we see the metaphor of cloud again, affiliated with lightning as well:

“And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.”

Is it not possible that this lightning is also a metaphor for ‘glory’?

A little later in Exodus 20:18 we read:

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off."

Is it not possible that when the peoples of the world witness this lightning (Glory of God) they stand “removed” and stand “afar off” and reject Him? Just as they did in the days of Noah, as attested in Luke 17?

Do you not see the lightning as being rejected just as it was rejected in the Person of Jesus?

.

 

[Vouthon]

Thank you again brother

When we look at Exodus 19:16 we see the metaphor of cloud again, affiliated with lightning as well:

Is it not possible that this lightning is also a metaphor for ‘glory’?

Yes, that is very much a possibility

A little later in Exodus 20:18 we read:

Is it not possible that when the peoples of the world witness this lightning (Glory of God) they stand “removed” and stand “afar off” and reject Him? Just as they did in the days of Noah, as attested in Luke 17?

I think that, from a scholarly perspective, it would be tenuous to construe their reaction as being equivalent to “rejection”. They were simply terrified by the majesty and glory of God, whom, according to the Bible no one can see and “live” ie "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).

I think it would be a considerable leap without much of a causal link to textually construe “standing far off” as meaning “rejection”. Actually the translation you used, which seems to be based on the KJV, is somewhat defective. It does not actually say “removed” but rather “trembled” something that is reflected in every other ancient and modern translation. Let me show you:

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, **the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off **(ESV)

All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. (New American Standard Bible)

And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: **and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off **(Douay-Rheims Bible)

All the people perceived the thunderings, the lightnings, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. **When the people saw it, they trembled, and stayed at a distance **(World English Bible)

Likewise the “lightening” indeed can mean glory but the purpose of the verse in Luke is to suggest that the coming of the Son of Man will be manifest, immediately and irrevocably to each person on earth like a flash of “lightening”. Notice that the verse says the lightening will be “visible” from east to west. This suggests certainty. It will not be like a person out in the desert or in a room or anywhere else on earth. It will be an immediate, divine event of God’s majesty and glory that will be as visible to mankind as “lightening in the sky”. As I said earlier, Baha’u’llah’s Declaration was not immediately known from “East to West”. Every single human being did not suddenly declare, “The Messiah has returned! I see him!”

Likewise and as I said earlier, we are expecting Christ in his glorified body, not another person born again on earth and leading another mortal life.

So it doesn’t fit the bill for what we are expecting

Do you not see the lightning as being rejected just as it was rejected in the Person of Jesus?

Quite honestly, no, because I don’t think that there is anything in the Exodus verse about “rejecting” lightening. They are simply terrified by this awesome demonstration of God’s power.

Nonetheless, I do admire your tenacity and spirit in trying to explicate meaning from these passages, even though I do not see what you must be seeing

 

[daler]

So it doesn’t fit the bill for what we are expecting

Quite honestly, no, because I don’t think that there is anything in the Exodus verse about “rejecting” lightening. They are simply terrified by this awesome demonstration of God’s power.

Nonetheless, I do admire your tenacity and spirit in trying to explicate meaning from these passages, even though I do not see what you must be seeing

It would seem to me that describing heavenly happenings to an earthly bound audience must always have its challenges. The sign or symbol is not that which it represents or stands for.

Alan Watts stated a Zen tradition that the most common mistake in religion is to take the sign for that which it represents. It is like driving on the freeway, seeing the sign for Los Angeles, the driving into the sign instead of following the Exit, then claiming to have been to LA.

Religion necessarily uses the symbols of language and is both constrained by it and liberated to those who have the wisdom to look beyond the signs and imagery of literalism.

“My Kingdom is not of this world.”, Jesus said, yet the literalists rejected Him because of it. If my physical eyes demand physical proofs from a spiritual Lord, they shall forever be disappointed.

“And I saw a new Heaven and a new earth” is such an example. The Jehovah’s Witnesses expect a literal rock and mortar City to descend from the sky, failing to comprehend that Jesus Himself said that He came down from heaven.

So we are left with the expectation of supernatural physical events are spiritual events which, even as in the days of Jesus the Christ, took place before the very eyes of the learned scholars of His day, who dismissed Him as an ignorant man.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, that is very much a possibility

I think that, from a scholarly perspective, it would be tenuous to construe their reaction as being equivalent to “rejection”. They were simply terrified by the majesty and glory of God, whom, according to the Bible no one can see and “live” ie "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).

I think it would be a considerable leap without much of a causal link to textually construe “standing far off” as meaning “rejection”. Actually the translation you used, which seems to be based on the KJV, is somewhat defective. It does not actually say “removed” but rather “trembled” something that is reflected in every other ancient and modern translation. Let me show you:

Likewise the “lightening” indeed can mean glory but the purpose of the verse in Luke is to suggest that the coming of the Son of Man will be manifest, immediately and irrevocably to each person on earth like a flash of “lightening”. Notice that the verse says the lightening will be “visible” from east to west. This suggests certainty. It will not be like a person out in the desert or in a room or anywhere else on earth. It will be an immediate, divine event of God’s majesty and glory that will be as visible to mankind as “lightening in the sky”. As I said earlier, Baha’u’llah’s Declaration was not immediately known from “East to West”. Every single human being did not suddenly declare, “The Messiah has returned! I see him!”

Likewise and as I said earlier, we are expecting Christ in his glorified body, not another person born again on earth and leading another mortal life.
**
So it doesn’t fit the bill for what we are expecting **

Quite honestly, no, because I don’t think that there is anything in the Exodus verse about “rejecting” lightening. They are simply terrified by this awesome demonstration of God’s power.

Nonetheless, I do admire your tenacity and spirit in trying to explicate meaning from these passages, even though I do not see what you must be seeing

Thankyou Daler for re-visiting this thread. I must admit I had forgotten about it.

Vouthon does indeed raise some valid points, however, I cannot help but feel that there is no certitude in the interpretations of “HOW” exactly Jesus will return.

I took the liberty to embolden the sentence in Vouthon’s post above as a sign and indication that God very rarely does what we petty little minds are “expecting”

If Jesus had indeed arrived Himself some 2000 years ago in a manner that the Jews were expecting, there would indeed be no Jews today, but alas, He did not come in the manner that they were expecting

Indeed, the translations provided by brother Vouthon give further validation to the realities present in the world. Indeed the “lightening strike”, the “trumpet blast” and the “clouds” which surrounded Baha’u’llah’s Declaration were absolutely terrifying and if we were to really look deep, deep, DEEP, “DEEPER” down within ourselves there is a trembling that is preventing us from approaching Him, we stand afar and are afraid. Why? Because Tradition dictates our lives. When we are free from Tradition and loyalties to names and external bonds, we find empowerment to approach His Glory.

God bless you all

.

 

[daler]

Indeed, the translations provided by brother Vouthon give further validation to the realities present in the world. Indeed the “lightening strike”, the “trumpet blast” and the “clouds” which surrounded Baha’u’llah’s Declaration were absolutely terrifying and if we were to really look deep, deep, DEEP, “DEEPER” down within ourselves there is a trembling that is preventing us from approaching Him, we stand afar and are afraid. Why? Because Tradition dictates our lives. When we are free from Tradition and loyalties to names and external bonds, we find empowerment to approach His Glory.

God bless you all

.

Indeed, the chick which is content to stay within the egg and is comfortable there shall proclaim itself to have arrived. It is painful to be born, to suffer the egg to be broken, and enter the next realm of existence.

We are challenged by the very shell which housed and protected us, yet now it is in the way. These “clouds” which obscure our view are veils which must be parted, valleys from which we must emerge to find greater and deeper meanings.

Many are comfortable in the valleys, but there are some who notice a light shining from the peaks. They leave the masses and go investigate. Then, when they return to the very valleys they have come from, bearing eloquent testimony to the truth of the Words of their Lord, they are often challenged and confronted, accused of blasphemy and the like, and forced to answer ridiculous questions in conformity with the comfortable reaches of the people who have chosen to remain in the valleys.

But there are some who do look up and gaze into the sky filled with clouds, and they beckon us to go with them on their journey from the valley to the peaks. These are the sincere, who fear not, nor allow traditions to constrain them.

God bless the seekers, for they are the ones who will find…