In matthew 13: 24-28. What the word weed means?

"The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn." Matt 13:24-30

Cockle, some times rendered as tares, i.e. weed: a weed, as the darnel Lolium temulentum, or rye grass, L. perenne. (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)

I've come to learn that both the seed and the grass of the cockle look very much like wheat. The act of sowing over a wheat field with cockle was the preverbal dirty trick in antiquity, saved only for your most hated neighbor. If you think about it, you must really hate your neighbor to take the time to harvest the seed of a plant that dosen't provide sustenance and then take the time to sow it over somebody else's field. Now the good man must tend a field that containing both weed and sustaining wheat, and then expend additional labor to separate the two, if in fact he can. If the wheat is crowded out by the weed, you might lose the entire field.

This parable is comparing the Kingdom of God (the Church) with the man who sowed good seed. But, while the men slept an enemy sowed weeds in with the wheat, allowing nature to take its course. Only after the both wheat and cockle started to bear fruit could the difference be discerned. The servants wanted to get rid of the cockle, but the master knew that the good wheat would be up-rooted at that same time. So, the good man instructed the servants to gather both at harvest and then separate them.

The reference of men sleeping was a warning that those who are entrusted to keep the fields should remain diligent. The tares which look much like the wheat symbolizes a false faith sown by the antichrist and, like that of the cockle which vies for the same nutrients in the soil, the faithful maybe crowded out. Thus staying diligent and awake the Church "shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved". (Matt 10:22)

Rightly, the servants of Christ are concerned that the weed may at sometime overtake the just, doing incurable harm. However, in wanting to remove the cockle before it ripens endangers the wheat. The effort to remove the cockle will uproot the wheat. So, we must suffer the unholy to grow alongside the holy. In the end the weeds will be carried off and burned and the faithful will receive their reward in heaven in the separation of the wheat from the tares.

JoeT

Matthew 13:24-28 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

The Kings James Version refer is [tares] as underlined above.

The Strong Concordance refer of the meaning to tares as being: a kind of darnel, bastard wheat resembling wheat except the grains are black.

This idea of tares being a black bastard wheat is the same idea of when Satan deceived Eve in the garden. Cain was the devils seed sown in deception, and the first murderer from the beginning. The tare sown, by Satan.

Matthew 13:24-28 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

The Kings James Version refer is [tares] as underlined above.

The Strong Concordance refer of the meaning to tares as being: a kind of darnel, bastard wheat resembling wheat except the grains are black.

This idea of tares being a black bastard wheat is the same idea of when Satan deceived Eve in the garden. Cain was the devils seed sown in deception, and the first murderer from the beginning. The tare sown, by Satan.

Cain was indeed the Devil's seed, but not literally.

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Matthew 13:24-28 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

The Kings James Version refer is [tares] as underlined above.

The Strong Concordance refer of the meaning to tares as being: a kind of darnel, bastard wheat resembling wheat except the grains are black.

This idea of tares being a black bastard wheat is the same idea of when Satan deceived Eve in the garden. Cain was the devils seed sown in deception, and the first murderer from the beginning. The tare sown, by Satan.

I've got to second that. This is rather a unique interpretation. Where did it come from?

JoeT

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

2 Cr 11:2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Adam and Eve were aware of their flesh bodies before God permitted their joining as one. I believe that is why God did not find favor in Cain verse Abel. Cain was conceived in deception caused by Satan to stop the birth of Christ.

John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[....
Adam and Eve were aware of their flesh bodies before God permitted their joining as one. I believe that is why God did not find favor in Cain verse Abel. Cain was conceived in deception caused by Satan to stop the birth of Christ.

.....

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Then why does Scripture say "from the Lord"?

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Then why does Scripture say "from the Lord"?

DeMaria, All souls belong to God..We know God determines whether a woman is to have children.. So we can see God did not stop Eve from having children. Eve was ordained by God to be the mother of all living. So for Eve to say, "I have gotten a man," it is to say in the blessing of a child that God determine the gender to be man..

The scripture goes on to say 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Two male children, and note the word again"yacaph" to add or increase, continue. We can suppose they were twins where her labor continued or added to what came first.

The conception of fraternal twins can be two different time periods. So I can suppose that Cain was conceived outside of what we call wedlock or before God intended. This was the deception Satan caused and what is refer as bastard wheat or the beginning of tares.

The above discussion is very interesting and informative.
Thank you all very much.
Have a Merry, Holy Christmas,
Fred

DeMaria, All souls belong to God..We know God determines whether a woman is to have children.. So we can see God did not stop Eve from having children. Eve was ordained by God to be the mother of all living. So for Eve to say, "I have gotten a man," it is to say in the blessing of a child that God determine the gender to be man..

The scripture goes on to say 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Two male children, and note the word again"yacaph" to add or increase, continue. We can suppose they were twins where her labor continued or added to what came first.

The conception of fraternal twins can be two different time periods. So I can suppose that Cain was conceived outside of what we call wedlock or before God intended. This was the deception Satan caused and what is refer as bastard wheat or the beginning of tares.

But didn't God give Eve to be Adam's wife when He created her?

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

But didn't God give Eve to be Adam's wife when He created her?

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This is still in general of man and woman. (Adam means man)

Read Genesis 3:16-23 which examples the changes that were after Eve had been deceived. From what is said God permitted Eve desire for her husband, and charged that Adam should rule over her. Neither of this was true before she touch what she was told not to do. And infact Eve had ruled over Adam to bring him to eat what was said not to be touched. We should not be ignorant or naive to what the desire of flesh can lead us to doing. By verse 20 Adam calls Eve his wife. God confirmed man was made one knowing good and evil.
(note during this deception, it is the misleading words of evil by Satan' )

De Maria,
Very good question!
And
You answered it well.
Fred

Read Genesis 3:16-23 which examples the changes that were after Eve had been deceived. From what is said God permitted Eve desire for her husband, and charged that Adam should rule over her. Neither of this was true before she touch what she was told not to do. And infact Eve had ruled over Adam to bring him to eat what was said not to be touched. We should not be ignorant or naive to what the desire of flesh can lead us to doing. By verse 20 Adam calls Eve his wife. God confirmed man was made one knowing good and evil.
(note during this deception, it is the misleading words of evil by Satan' )

I don't see it. Could you walk me through what you are talking about?

Genesis 3:16-23 (King James Version)

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken.

Sincerely,

De Maria

This parable is comparing the Kingdom of God (the Church) with the man who sowed good seed.
As I understand it, "The Kingdom of God" includes a great deal more than "the Church". Do you really believe that the two are synonymous?

De Maria.
Thanks much for that.
Fred

Let's take it back to Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And realize that God was please with what he had created. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now God rested on the seventh day.. all done Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


Now we continue by God telling man=Adam not to touch the tree .. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

In general God talks of man needing a woman, Note again (Adam means man) Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This is still a statement that man and woman are made in general with the plan for them to marry. Man with woman.. The plan is in place for Adam, and one woman.


Genesis 3 come in and it's Satan who wants to deceive before God's plan for woman and man can bring forth the return of Christ through Eve the mother of all living. She would be the mother of all living because of Christ bringing us life.

Have I explained this enough for the thought to continue in the right path from here?

ordinaryguy,
I do believe that the Kingdom of God on earth is The Church.
It is where His word is preached and understand it taught.
It is where His followers are one with Him of one body each part of it with a certain function or calling.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay,
I do believe that God did institute marriage and did marry Adam and Eve.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Let's take it back to Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And realize that God was please with what he had created. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now God rested on the seventh day.. all done Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


Now we continue by God telling man=Adam not to touch the tree .. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

In general God talks of man needing a woman, Note again (Adam means man) Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This is still a statement that man and woman are made in general with the plan for them to marry. Man with woman.. The plan is in place for Adam, and one woman.


Genesis 3 come in and it's Satan who wants to deceive before God's plan for woman and man can bring forth the return of Christ through Eve the mother of all living. She would be the mother of all living because of Christ bringing us life.

Have I explained this enough for the throught to continue in the right path from here?

Ohhhh, I don't think so. You've got a lot of dots to connect. How do we get from here to "tares being a black bastard wheat is the same idea of when Satan deceived Eve in the garden. Cain was the devils seed sown in deception, and the first murderer from the beginning. The tare sown, by Satan." You'll have to paint the entire picture, I still don't get it. You've got to remember, I can be thick headed.

And, I'm not buying.


JoeT

JoeT777,
I'm having trouble with that also.
Fred

Posted #8



The conception of fraternal twins can be two different time periods. So I can suppose that Cain was conceived outside of what we call wedlock or before God intended. This was the deception Satan caused and what is refer as bastard wheat or the beginning of tares.

First let me clarify the suggestion of out of weblock being the idea that Eve had eaten with another other then her husband..because it does say she ate of it thereof and followed in saying she offered it also to her husband.. OR the second underlined suggestion was that the the desire was before God intended..

Posted #10

But didn't God give Eve to be Adam's wife when He created her?
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


No I don't feel Genesis 2: 23-24 is specific in saying Adam and Eve are married. However I do feel the verses tell us that woman, when they was made on the sixth day (Genesis1: 27) were made second to man. The rib in Genesis 2:22 is a segolate form in Hebrew which can be read as rib-bone-bone marol. It is misleading to believe man has one less rib then woman, because it is not true. But to understand that woman was made by the bone marol of man making her as Adam said , This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. She was made like man yet different in appearance. The appearance of the flesh was not yet introduces in awareness of any shame,(Genesis2:25) and the scripture before that went on to say.. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Clearly meaning a man and woman will leave mother and father to marry each other when the time comes and cleave unto her.

In the next chaper Genesis 3:4 has Satan telling woman the opposite truth from what God has warned. The deception begins in woman listening to Satan. Adam and Eve were married, and yet she is looking upon what Satan has offered. And I believe woman touched upon the idea of nudedness having desire, with Satan as the tree showing the knowledge of this idea is the evilness. Woman there of ate of it from the tree, and gave ALSO to her husband. We can read how this desire was offered to Adam secondly, and quoted in scripture: a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Cain was conceived out of weblock with another other then her husband, or before God intended and against God's warning. Either way it was by desire of the flesh which Satan offered in knowledge.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Note desire will be for her husand... he rules over her so there is no going by another suggestion from someone other then him.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Note it is that Adam ate of the same tree, and the scripture said a tree to be desired.(Genesis 3:6)

Ohhhh, I don't think so. You've got a lot of dots to connect. How do we get from here to "tares being a black bastard wheat is the same idea of when Satan deceived Eve in the garden. Cain was the devils seed sown in deception, and the first murderer from the beginning. The tare sown, by Satan." You'll have to paint the entire picture, I still don't get it. You've got to remember, I can be thick headed.

And, I'm not buying.


JoeT

Joe sorry I had to leave because of the drifting snow storm we were experiencing yesterday.

The supposed idea is further offered, but please understand that each scripture given plants the seed of thought. It is up to God to reveal to each as He wants. I believe this idea more then any Apple or actual eating of fruit. The scriptures link together showing the mystery starting in the beginning.

There is reason why I find this idea clearly give idenite to the eaten fruit. For it was done before God intended in disobedience to God's warning. The desire of sex is the reason for covering the flesh.

2 Cr 11:2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

This last verse suggests that should we go do what is contrary to what we are told by God, it would be the beguiled desire feed by Satan. Which would cause us to conceive or give birth to something other then what God intended, and warned not to do

2 Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Posted #10



No I don't feel Genesis 2: 23-24 is specific in saying Adam and Eve are married. However I do feel the verses tell us that woman, when they was made on the sixth day (Genesis1: 27) were made second to man. The rib in Genesis 2:22 is a segolate form in Hebrew which can be read as rib-bone-bone marol. It is misleading to believe man has one less rib then woman, because it is not true. But to understand that woman was made by the bone marol of man making her as Adam said , This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. She was made like man yet different in appearance. The appearance of the flesh was not yet introduces in awareness of any shame,(Genesis2:25) and the scripture before that went on to say.. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Clearly meaning a man and woman will leave mother and father to marry each other when the time comes and cleave unto her.

In the next chaper Genesis 3:4 has Satan telling woman the opposite truth from what God has warned. The deception begins in woman listening to Satan. Adam and Eve were married, and yet she is looking upon what Satan has offered. And I believe woman touched upon the idea of nudedness having desire, with Satan as the tree showing the knowledge of this idea is the evilness. Woman there of ate of it from the tree, and gave ALSO to her husband. We can read how this desire was offered to Adam secondly, and quoted in scripture: a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Cain was conceived out of weblock with another other then her husband, or before God intended and against God's warning. Either way it was by desire of the flesh which Satan offered in knowledge.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Note desire will be for her husand... he rules over her so there is no going by another suggestion from someone other then him.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Note it is that Adam ate of the same tree, and the scripture said a tree to be desired.(Genesis 3:6)

I'm not sure if you are saying that Eve actually had sexual relations with Satan. We don't believe that.

On the other hand, it has been suggested by one I'm aware of, that Adam and Eve may have had contraceptive sex.

I'm not sure if you are saying that Eve actually had sexual relations with Satan. We don't believe that.
.

Well from what scripture says, I can't warrant anything further then touching the desire there of which was offered by Satan. But I feel we can firmly say the disobedience that lead to sexual desire was what caused the covering of the flesh.

As I posted to Joe previously, scripture further links the deception of Satan' attempts, can cause us to bear what is conceived in following him.

2 Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

The parable does also link with the seed that was sown by Satan from the beginning.

Well from what scripture says, I can't warrant anything further then touching the desire there of which was offered by Satan. But I feel we can firmly say the disobedience that lead to sexual desire was what caused the covering of the flesh.....

I can agree with that.

2 Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

So with this scripture in mind, would we agree that
to go contrary to what we are told by God, it would be a beguiled desire feed by Satan. Which would cause us to conceive or give birth to something other then what God intended?

And result with the devil's seed refer as tares?

2 Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

So with this scripture in mind, would we agree that
to go contrary to what we are told by God, it would be a beguiled desire feed by Satan. Which would cause us to conceive or give birth to something other then what God intended?

And result with the devil's seed refer as tares?

Yes. I believe that would be consistent with God's referring to Israel as committing adultery in the Old Testament (Jer 13:27).

De Maria,
I much agree with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe sorry I had to leave because of the drifting snow storm we were experiencing yesterday.

The supposed idea is further offered, but please understand that each scripture given plants the seed of thought. It is up to God to reveal to each as He wants. I believe this idea more then any Apple or actual eating of fruit. The scriptures link together showing the mystery starting in the beginning.

There is reason why I find this idea clearly give idenite to the eaten fruit. For it was done before God intended in disobedience to God's warning. The desire of sex is the reason for covering the flesh.

2 Cr 11:2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

This last verse suggests that should we go do what is contrary to what we are told by God, it would be the beguiled desire feed by Satan. Which would cause us to conceive or give birth to something other then what God intended, and warned not to do

2 Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].



The Catholic Church doesn’t teach anything like this. To me it seems like twisted and forced interpretation.

In fact what we find is that the “seed of Cain” doctrine fosters a hate, primarily against Jews, Catholics, and blacks. I lived in the South and went through some of this in the early and late 60’s and I should have caught on right away. I just couldn't kick my memory in gear. As I learned today, the doctrine originates from a faith healer William M. Branham (1909-1965), and Daniel Parker (1791-1844) an earlier proponent. A central teaching Branham’s is a restoration of “the true apostolic faith” to the church. Included in some of controversial doctrines is “the serpent seed doctrine.” Parker was a Primitive Baptist with Gnostic like Manichaeism views. Parker published his views, Views on the Two Seeds, 1826.

The twisted verses work out as follows: The Serpent Seed doctrine held that Eve had sexual intercourse with an upright serpent, thought to be the ‘missing link’ between man and ape. Being cursed by God the serpent retains its current shape and form today. Cain was considered the offspring of satan. Adam on the other hand was considered pure. Intermarriage caused “inbreeding” and thus certain races were more pure than others.

The Catholic Church doesn’t comment on the doctrine however holds its own clear doctrine on original sin which in my opinion would preclude these views.


Branhamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism)
Serpent seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed)
Daniel Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Parker)

JoeT

JoeT777
Thanks much for that information some of it wild and weird as it is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

As I understand it, "The Kingdom of God" includes a great deal more than "the Church". Do you really believe that the two are synonymous?

Yes

JoeT777,
I fully agree with you. YES!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

As I understand it, "The Kingdom of God" includes a great deal more than "the Church". Do you really believe that the two are synonymous?

Depends on what you mean by Church. We believe the Church is the House of God. Therefore, yes, it is equivalent to Kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself In the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

De Maria,
Yes millions of houses (many are mansions) of God have been built for the love of God and in which to love and worship God over the ages.
Merry Christmas.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Depends on what you mean by Church. We believe the Church is the House of God. Therefore, yes, it is equivalent to Kingdom of God.

You assert a definitional equivalence here, but don't provide a reasoned argument. I'm not persuaded that any reasonable definition of "Church" is synonymous with the Kingdom of God. That you would equate the two makes me think that your view of the Kingdom is impossibly narrow and restrictive.

The Parable of The Weeds Explained Matthew 13:36-43 NIV,

36:: Then He left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said
explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.
37: He answered, the one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man
38: the field is the world, and the good seed stands for the Son of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39: and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age and the harvesters.
40: As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41: The Son of Man sends out his angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
42: They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43: Then the rightous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has
ears let him hear.

I know many will not look the scripture up so I decided to type it out for you.
In case you haven't figured it out... the fiery furnace is HELL.

Maggie 3

You assert a definitional equivalence here, but don't provide a reasoned argument. I'm not persuaded that any reasonable definition of "Church" is synonymous with the Kingdom of God. That you would equate the two makes me think that your view of the Kingdom is impossibly narrow and restrictive.

Once again we are back to the interpretation of a word in a scripture, This is what I mean when I say "who knows?" When we don't know the correct meaning, how can we be so absolute with our assertions ?

40: As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41: The Son of Man sends out his angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

This makes it pretty clear that until the end of the age, which hasn't happened yet, the weeds are included and allowed to grow within The Kingdom. So, if The Kingdom is synonymous with The Church, then The Weeds are at the present time, i.e. before the harvest, contained within The Church.

It seems to me that the plain meaning of the text is that, at least until after The Harvest, there is much that is outside The Church, but within The Kingdom.


I know many will not look the scripture up so I decided to type it out for you.
You're right, I wouldn't have. Thank you.

The "weeds" have infiltrated Christain governments and Christian life through mass media to spread decadence and immorality.
In his Biblical account of those things which “must be hereafter,” St John spoke of this “beast” whose power was given to him by the ancient dragon, Satan himself. “Who can make war with the beast?” St John heard the multitudes exclaim in awe of the beast's powers. And today, it is the multitude of deluded Christian-Zionists who are in awe of the Israelis, turning a blind eye to their atrocities against the Palestinians.
Whether they know it or not, most Christians are being spoon fed false doctrine that allows the "weeds" to grow up around us.

DeMaria: Cain IS the literal seed of Satan.
Why did Adam and Eve cover their private parts before GOD? Satan corupted the line of Adam through which he knew the Lord of Lords would be arriving.

Rust never sleeps

BBC NEWS | UK | Most 'do not believe in nativity' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7793106.stm)

Cain IS the literal seed of Satan.

That Cain is the seed of Satan is a perverted theological view typically held by those following Daniel Parker's teachings, reconstituted by William M. Branham in his homilies of hate. This is one of the prime biblical misinterpretations used to support religious and racial bigotry, usually of the rankest kind. It's similar view that permitted German's during WWII to hold Jews as sub-human. This heretical view is based on Eve's original sin eating from the tree knowledge of Good and Evil. As a harlot Eve allowed hereself to be seduced by a serpent, who unlike today, had human features. Prior to her temptation the erroneous theory holds that the serpent was a race of soulless human like creatures used for manual labor. God then punishes Adam and Eve; the serpent is condemned to a slithering creepy crawley creature that he is today. However, as a result of the seduction, Eve gives birth to Cain, whose blood is tainted with the serpent's evil. Henceforth, those descendants of Cain are “seed of Satan.” Thus, so goes the theory, we have the cause of sin, and we have subhuman creatures tempting and seducing the “elect”.

This and other false teachings were held as evidentiary support by the Ku Klux Klan for holding represive views; that being the seed of Cain, segregation could be biblically substantiated. Furthermore, since “evolution of mankind, when man--God brood upon the earth... And He begin to bring up birds, and the--from birds He come to different things, then chimpanzee, and from the chimpanzee to the serpent” and thus could be viewed less than human. I remember from the 60's when this philosophy spread through the south among those who opposed desegregation efforts. The only seduction is the evil enticing normal Bible believing Christians to take up apartheid against those they see as “sub-human” as a means of subjugation.

Catholic's hold that this as heretical and utter nonsense based on the clear declaration in Geneis that Eve is the offspring of Adam; And Adam knew Eve his wife; who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God. (Gen 4:1)

see also :
Branhamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism)
Serpent seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed)
Daniel Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Parker)


JoeT

The last man of Adams pure line was Noah. Every person on the planet today has the blood of Cain, Adam and Eve.
You are right. Hate groups have twisted it to mean that only "some" have the Gene. And of course, they are the pure ones. That is pure and utter nonsense. We all have the good seed and the bad seed within us. That is why we can be good or evil.
Everyone except Jesus Christ. Hence the virgin birth. Satan corrupted the line.

The last man of Adams pure line was Noah. Every person on the planet today has the blood of Cain, Adam and Eve.
You are right. Hate groups have twisted it to mean that only "some" have the Gene. And of course, they are the pure ones. That is pure and utter nonsense. We all have the good seed and the bad seed within us. That is why we can be good or evil.
Everyone except Jesus Christ. Hence the virgin birth. Satan corrupted the line.

Then you have no free will - when you sin - the seed made you do it - right?

You assert a definitional equivalence here, but don't provide a reasoned argument.

Hm? I'm on a Christian forum providing the Word of God as support for my argument. What did you expect, Freud?


I'm not persuaded that any reasonable definition of "Church" is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

Then if you want to have a Christian debate, show me from Scripture or from Catholic doctrine that it is not the same thing. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say on the matter.


That you would equate the two makes me think that your view of the Kingdom is impossibly narrow and restrictive.

Why does it matter? Are you Catholic or Christian?

My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture. Upon what do you rest yours?

It seems to me that the plain meaning of the text is that, at least until after The Harvest, there is much that is outside The Church, but within The Kingdom.


This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow from your analysis of the text.

Akoue
Greed,
Fred

This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow from your analysis of the text.

Well, yes, it does. I'll repeat it for you:



Originally Posted by Maggie 3
38: the field is the world, and the good seed stands for the Son of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39: and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age and the harvesters are the angels.
40: As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41: The Son of Man sends out his angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
This makes it pretty clear that until the end of the age, which hasn't happened yet, the weeds are included and allowed to grow within The Kingdom. So, if The Kingdom is synonymous with The Church, then The Weeds are at the present time, i.e. before the harvest, contained within The Church.

Verse 38 clearly states the field where both the tares and the good seed grow is the world, not the church. The fact that the weeds are to be removed from the Kingdom at the end of the age implies that the Kingdom of God encompasses the whole world, not just the church, and that until the end of the age, the Kingdom includes both sons of the Kingdom and sons of the evil one. Nowhere, either in the parable or in Jesus' explanation of it, is the Church even mentioned.

I really don't see the payoff for the insistence that the Kingdom is limited to the Church. If that's the case, the parable would be saying that the tares are growing within the Church, but not outside it.

Do you take "the kingdom" of the Son and "the kingdom" of the Father (v.43) to be co-extensive?

Hm? I'm on a Christian forum providing the Word of God as support for my argument. What did you expect, Freud?
You provided neither an argument nor scriptural support. You just asserted that they are the same. No evidence, no argument, no logic, no reasoning, just smug supercilious assertion. The text you quoted,
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. is about how to behave in church, and doesn't even mention the Kingdom of God, much less establish it's equivalence to the Church.

Then if you want to have a Christian debate, show me from Scripture or from Catholic doctrine that it is not the same thing. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say on the matter. I already showed from scripture that they are not the same. And you really have nothing to say about whether I have anything to say on the matter.

Why does it matter?
It matters because equating the Kingdom to the Church distorts the meaning of the parable and diminishes the inclusiveness of the Kingdom of God.

Are you Catholic or Christian?Why does it matter?

My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture. You haven't supported your opinion with anything, so it's hard to tell what it rests on, except your supremely self-satisfied air of superiority.

Upon what do you rest yours?Rational thought, careful reading, and a common sense interpretation of language.

Do you take "the kingdom" of the Son and "the kingdom" of the Father (v.43) to be co-extensive?

Do you take "co-extensive" to be synonymous with "synonymous"? If so, yes, I do. What does that very fine distinction have to do with whether the Kingdom is equivalent to the Church?

Do you take "co-extensive" to be synonymous with "synonymous"? If so, yes, I do. What does that very fine distinction have to do with whether the Kingdom is equivalent to the Church?

Because if you do, then your earlier post wasn't a non sequitur and I was mistaken to say that it was. If you don't (and I wrongly assumed that you didn't) then it would have been a non sequitur.

This is an interesting discussion to me.
While I do believe that the Kingdom of God on this planet is The Church. I'd like to see more "friendly" discussion on that here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I do believe that the Kingdom of God on this planet is The Church

I'd be interested to know why you believe this. Either you think that the Church includes far more than I think it does, or that the Kingdom of God includes much less.

Most of Jesus' teaching on the subject of the Kingdom of God is contained in several parables that were explicitly intended to answer the question "What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what can I compare it?" He apparently considered it a challenge to convey the fullness of the concept as he meant it, because the parables come at it from several different angles. As far as I can tell, he never mentioned the Church at all in this context.

This is why I'm so intrigued that you, JoeT777 and DeMaria are united in your insistence that the term simply refers to the Christian Church. If you can arrive at that conclusion from a careful study of these parables, I am truly amazed, but not at all persuaded.

I'd be interested to know why you believe this. Either you think that the Church includes far more than I think it does, or that the Kingdom of God includes much less.

Most of Jesus' teaching on the subject of the Kingdom of God is contained in several parables that were explicitly intended to answer the question "What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what can I compare it?" He apparently considered it a challenge to convey the fullness of the concept as he meant it, because the parables come at it from several different angles. As far as I can tell, he never mentioned the Church at all in this context.

This is why I'm so intrigued that you, JoeT777 and DeMaria are united in your insistence that the term simply refers to the Christian Church. If you can arrive at that conclusion from a careful study of these parables, I am truly amazed, but not at all persuaded.


I can't speak for De Maria, I'm sure he'll have his own say, but I believe that the Roman Catholic Church IS the earthly component of the Kingdom of God. Insofaras I know this is the teaching of the Church. That bothers you doesn't it? What do you think that might mean to the Protestant?

I'm not trying to persuade you, truth IS. I don't care what Bill Clinton says.

JoeT

ordinaryguy,
Please don't get me wrong.
I said the Kingdom on this world or planet.
The heavenly Kingdom of God is NOT on this planet but The Church that Jesus established with Peter as it's first leader is on this world.
It was and still is the Mother Church, the bride of Christ.
The Church struggles to help the world work to fulfull as Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
If we mortals can accomplish that then that is when we can truly say "Heaven on earth"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I beleive that the Roman Catholic Church IS the the earthly component of the Kingdom of God. Insofaras I know this is the teaching of the Church. That bothers you dosn't it? Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.

ordinaryguy,
Please don't get me wrong.
I said the Kingdom on this world or planet.
The heavenly Kingdom of God is NOT on this planet but The Church that Jesus established with Peter as it's first leader is on this world.
It was and still is the Mother Church, the bride of Christ.
Yes, but you still haven't explained why you think the Kingdom of God on this planet is identical with the Church, except that the Catholic Church says it is. If that's all the reason you need, OK, I guess. But a straightforward reading of the parables that Jesus told to explain the Kingdom of God doesn't support that conclusion.

Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.

Those are some strong accusations. Where did I espouse self-righteousness? I’d like to avoid it in the future. I need to know where my faults lie. When did I take unto myself righteousness?

Frankness would be appreciated.

JoeT

Those are some strong accusations. Where did I espouse self-righteousness? I’d like to avoid it in the future. I need to know where my faults lie. When did I take unto myself righteousness?

Frankness would be appreciated.

JoeT

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people. Jesus vehemently and repeatedly rejected the idea then, and I have no doubt that he would treat the Catholic (or any other) Church's similar claim in exactly the same way today.

The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual matter, and that membership in this or that group has no bearing on it whatsoever. His unsparing rejection of the idea of group favor before God got him crucified then, and if he were to come back and deliver the same message today, I have no doubt that he would meet a similar fate.

ordinaryguy,
Jesus told His apostles that they were the Kingdom and they became the bishops of His Church.
Jesus told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His Church and gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter which made Peter Jesus' Vicar and Prime Minister of The earthly Kingdom which Jesus so established.
Thus The Church is the earthly Kingdom of God but not the heavenly Kingdom which the earthly Kingdom is supposed to be a reflection of.
Notice that in Revelation we are told that the twelve will assist Jesus the Judge at the end of the age.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "identical in form". The claims strike me as quite different.


The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual matter,

"Absolutely" is a strong word. To be sure, the individual has work to do which cannot be done for her by another, but this is a long way from the sort of individualism you impute to Jesus's teaching. His chastisement of the Pharisees does not commit him to the claim that the individual is the sole locus of redemptive activity, for one. For another, Jesus emphasizes community and interdependence with some frequency. Here again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "an absolutely individual matter", but on any straightforward construal of that locution it isn't at all evident to me what would even make it true. (Perhaps it depends upon which bits one singles out as pertaining to "the essence of his message" and which bits one removes to the periphery.)


and that membership in this or that group has no bearing on it whatsoever.

I suppose a lot turns on how one construes group membership. If one were to think of it as something like joining a club, then I'm inclined to think you may be on to something. But Catholics don't think of membership in the Church in these terms, and to claim otherwise would be to indulge in caricature. I don't get the sense that many other Christians think of it this way either. Jesus displays a collectivist tendency, and this is why the Catholic Church--among others--has greeted with suspicion attempts to render his message into an individualistic idiom (a program which reached a frenzy of implausibility with the Hippie appropriation of Jesus in the late sixties). He certainly wasn't a kind of Horatio Alger of the spiritual life. I don't find Jesus disposing his followers to go it alone but to work together, to help one another, and this is not presented in a way that suggests that one's doing so is inessential. Communion, with God and with others, is indispensable.

Now, if you take umbrage with what you perceive to be the self-satisfaction of some, that's fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that just by virtue of being Catholic one is guaranteed Heaven. This ought to dispose Catholics to be humble. But--and this is just a bit of anecdote--when I think of the many times I've been cornered by someone aggressively assuring me of his salvation it has always been a non-Catholic (and I do mean "aggressively"). The vast majority of Catholics (and Orthodox) I've known find this to be at best distasteful and at worst sinfully presumptuous.

ordinaryguy,
Jesus told His apostles that they were the Kingdom and they became the bishops of His Church.
Jesus told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His Church and gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter which made Peter Jesus' Vicar and Prime Minister of The earthly Kingdom which Jesus so established.
Thus The Church is the earthly Kingdom of God but not the heavenly Kingdom which the earthly Kingdom is supposed to be a reflection of.
Notice that in Revelation we are told that the twelve will assist Jesus the Judge at the end of the age.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
It's OK, I don't begrudge you your certainty. But if I were to adopt it for myself, it would be a cop-out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "identical in form". The claims strike me as quite different.
The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

"Absolutely" is a strong word. To be sure, the individual has work to do which cannot be done for her by another, but this is a long way from the sort of individualism you impute to Jesus's teaching. His chastisement of the Pharisees does not commit him to the claim that the individual is the sole locus of redemptive activity, for one. For another, Jesus emphasizes community and interdependence with some frequency. Here again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "an absolutely individual matter", but on any straightforward construal of that locution it isn't at all evident to me what would even make it true. (Perhaps it depends upon which bits one singles out as pertaining to "the essence of his message" and which bits one removes to the periphery.)Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.


I suppose a lot turns on how one construes group membership. If one were to think of it as something like joining a club, then I'm inclined to think you may be on to something. But Catholics don't think of membership in the Church in these terms, and to claim otherwise would be to indulge in caricature. I don't get the sense that many other Christians think of it this way either. Jesus displays a collectivist tendency, and this is why the Catholic Church--among others--has greeted with suspicion attempts to render his message into an individualistic idiom (a program which reached a frenzy of implausibility with the Hippie appropriation of Jesus in the late sixties). He certainly wasn't a kind of Horatio Alger of the spiritual life. I don't find Jesus disposing his followers to go it alone but to work together, to help one another, and this is not presented in a way that suggests that one's doing so is inessential. Communion, with God and with others, is indispensable.
Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it precedes and enables communion with both God and others.

Now, if you take umbrage with what you perceive to be the self-satisfaction of some, that's fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that just by virtue of being Catholic one is guaranteed Heaven.
No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.

This ought to dispose Catholics to be humble. But--and this is just a bit of anecdote--when I think of the many times I've been cornered by someone aggressively assuring me of his salvation it has always been a non-Catholic (and I do mean "aggressively"). The vast majority of Catholics (and Orthodox) I've known find this to be at best distasteful and at worst sinfully presumptuous.I agree that Catholics are usually less inclined to get in people's face with their presumptions than some other groups, and I thank them for that much, at least.

The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. The Church believes that there will be non-Catholics in Heaven. It even believes there may be non-Christians (e.g. Jews) in Heaven.


No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.

Again, the Church does not teach this.

Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.


Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it preceeds and enables communion with both God and others.

I'm not so sure about that. He tells his followers to reconcile with one another before seeking reconciliation with him in prayer. Communion--without which he tells his followers in Jn.6 they have no life in them--is a communal act, so that communion with others is not simply an effect of communion with Christ. (In 1Cor.11 communion is clearly practiced communally.) Again, I don't mean to diminish the role of the individual, but only to locate that within the communal context in which it has its real efficacy.

Akoue,
I agree whole heartedly with you.
You do know that which The Church teaches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
I agree whole heartedly with you.
You do know that which The Church teaches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thank you for your kind words, Fred.

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people. …
The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual …


Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.


The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.

Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it preceeds and enables communion with both God and others.

No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.
I agree that Catholics are usually less inclined to get in people's face with their presumptions than some other groups, and I thank them for that much, at least.

Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested His Father and Himself by deeds and words, and completed His work by His death, resurrection and glorious Ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit. DEI VERBUM V 17

Ordinaryguy, et al:

It's not hubristic pronouncing the Kingdom of God. You might recall John the Baptist, as foreseen in Isaiah's prophesies, heralded the coming of the Messiah. And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came in Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God is at hand. (Mark 1:15) There cometh after me one mightier (Mark 1:14,15). Like anything said to be “at hand,” anyone hearing would expect the Kingdom to be within reach, which of course it was. Its patriarchs were chosen, a hierarchy was established with Peter at its head (Cf. Matt 16:18) and it was commissioned to feed the sheep of the Kingdom with the knowledge of the good news heard in the Gospel (Cf. John 21: 15-18).

Is our Christ so cruel that he would send his children out to seek that which can't be found? Sending his disciples out he said, But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. (Luke 12:31)

Also, why did he preach allegorically in the parable of the brides maids; Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five of them were foolish and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them. But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh. Go ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy the bridegroom came: and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage. And the door was shut. But at last came also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25: 1-14)

Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Have ye understood all these things? They say to him: Yes. (Matt 21:47:51)

The Kingdom is the Church today and in the end the wicked will be cast out of the kingdom. This Kingdom reigning over unbelievers matters little because they do not subject themselves to the reign of God. Those Christians who perilously hold themselves out of the kingdom are usually free thinkers, unwilling to subject their thoughts to the authority of the Church. Failing to subject our intellect to the discipline of the Church can have disastrous results. Those who hold the Church as the Kingdom of God know that whoever thinks as he pleases will do as he pleases. Intellectual order is license in moral order. Conversely, an undisciplined order in the intellectual order is license in immorality. Disorder in the intellect causes a “disorder in the heart, and vice-versa” and thus disseminates immorality, free morals begets immorality, (Cf. Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, El Liberalismo es Pecado, 1886)

Christ established this kingdom with a head, an authority to turn to, a guide, a rule. A single individual does not make a kingdom, a single family or house does not make a kingdom. A kingdom is made of many individual families, many individuals, each disciplined in the rule of the Kingdom. Kingdoms have heads of state, various princes of state; its rule is generally autocratic by nature. As an example, the Roman Catholic Church is such a Kingdom having landed boundaries, elected patristic ruler the Pope, and a College of Cardinals, commissioned by Christ to teach the Word of God.

One man does not make a Kingdom; one family does not make a Kingdom. If, just suppose if, Christ's mission was for each man to be sole arbiter over his faith, then how many different faiths would we have? Instead of One Catholic Church, wouldn't we have several, more than several tens of thousands, or how about some 30,000 Protestant free thinking Churches. But we Catholic know only one as Christ prayed; And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20,21)

So you see O'guy I wasn't being hubristic at all, just True to my faith.

To set the record straight, no righteousness was claimed for myself just for the Church as the Kingdom of God.

JoeT

JoeT777
Very well said.
Fred

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. The Church believes that there will be non-Catholics in Heaven. It even believes there may be non-Christians (e.g., Jews) in Heaven.



Again, the Church does not teach this.

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

The RC Church has not changed - in 2,000 years.

O’guy, et al:

You might remember the parable of the wheat and tars (Cf. Matt 13); We see that it clearly and plainly relates the good farmer and his field with the kingdom of heaven . Catholics hold that only in the Church is the proper sustenance given to the seeds of grace planted by God’s graces. That’s not to say that the wheat of faith can’t grow outside this field, however it does so with great effort. Therefore, we hold that the fullness of faith can only be found within the Church. This is quite a bit different from the Protestant take on this issue, where each individual blade of wheat takes it own sustenance directly form a little patch of the bible.

I cannot on my own, nor can any individual Catholic (including Bishops), negotiate any portion of Church doctrine. For two reasons; one, it’s not negotiable; two, it’s far beyond my pew warming position in the Church. Unlike the former President, Jimmy Carter, who feels free to travel abroad to negotiate US foreign policy outside the current government, Catholics are constrained with the discipline by their faith. The following is a passage from Vatican II’s, Decree on Ecumenism which might make it clearer. It illustrates how our Church approaches cooperative and uniting efforts with other Christian churches. I’ve highlighted the most relevant parts.


In this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church --- for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Without doubt, the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church --- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline or concerning the structure of the Church --- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.

The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brother by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one body, and whom he has quickened to newness of life --- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient

Tradition of the Church proclaims. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessing of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. During its pilgrimage on earth, this people, though guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to his hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

JoeT

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

I'm unaware of any change in this regard.

It's not hubristic pronouncing the Kingdom of God.
No, what's hubristic is trying to limit and circumscribe and contain the Kingdom within the confines of a particular religious institution, and to label all other manifestations of it as heresies and delusions. That's hubristic.

You might recall John the Baptist, as foreseen in Isaiah's prophesies, heralded the coming of the Messiah.
Yes, the very same John the Baptist who said:
8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." 10 So the people asked him, saying, "What shall we do then?" 11 He answered and said to them, "He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise." Luke 3:8-11
The similarity with this experience early in Jesus' public ministry is striking:

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, F29 To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." F30 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, "Is this not Joseph's son?" 23 He said to them, "You will surely say this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum, F31 do also here in Your country.' " 24 Then He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; 26 but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, F32 in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian." 28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way. Luke 4:16-30
In both cases, the clear message is that being a member of the "chosen people" is neither necessary nor sufficient to secure favor with God.

Is our Christ so cruel that he would send his children out to seek that which can't be found?
Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' F116 For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21

The Kingdom is the Church today
Nope, sorry, I'm still not buying it.

Kingdoms have heads of state, various princes of state; its rule is generally autocratic by nature. As an example, the Roman Catholic Church is such a Kingdom having landed boundaries, elected patristic ruler the Pope, and a College of Cardinals, commissioned by Christ to teach the Word of God.Yes, earthly kingdoms go to great lengths to be dominant and obvious. Not at all like "leaven hid in three measures of flour", or "a treasure hid in a field", or "a pearl of great price".


If, just suppose if, Christ's mission was for each man to be sole arbiter over his faith, then how many different faiths would we have? Instead of One Catholic Church, wouldn't we have several, more than several tens of thousands, or how about some 30,000 Protestant free thinking Churches.
Given that so many others do exist, I don't see how this little rhetorical gambit helps to make your case.


5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:5-8This doesn't sound like a teaching intended to promote good order and discipline in towing the party line. Notice also the lack of any mention of an institutional role in bringing about the new birth in the Spirit.


So you see O'guy I wasn't being hubristic at all, just True to my faith.

To set the record straight, no righteousness was claimed for myself just for the Church as the Kingdom of God.I have no ability or desire to judge whether you personally in your innermost heart of hearts are guilty of spiritual pride. But the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, and many other religious organizations, both Christian and non-Christian, do often seem to engender it in their adherents. But of course that's just my opinion and I have no pronouncements by Bishops or Cardinals or Popes to back me up, so those of you who put great stock in such things are free to disregard it if you like. I'm OK with that.

The RC Church has not changed - in 2,000 years.


For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

I thought not.

limit and circumscribe and contain the Kingdom

The quite obvious reply is, of course, to say that you've got the wrong end of the stick. What reason have we to see this as a limitation in any problematic sense? Things have boundaries. Big deal.


Yes, the very same John the Baptist who said:
The similarity with this experience early in Jesus' public ministry is striking:

In both cases, the clear message is that being a member of the "chosen people" is neither necessary nor sufficient to secure favor with God.

Well, sure, we don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. I'm unaware of anyone since the first century who's claimed otherwise.


Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.

And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?


But of course that's just my opinion and I have no pronouncements by Bishops or Cardinals or Popes to back me up, so those of you who put great stock in such things are free to disregard it if you like. I'm OK with that.

Cute.

Things have boundaries. But the Kingdom is not a "thing", and whatever boundaries it may have are different from those that define the Catholic Church, or the Christian religion.


Well, sure, we don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. I'm unaware of anyone since the first century who's claimed otherwise.The point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe, nation, religion, church, club, or any other group in order to be reconciled with God. Participation in such groups does indeed confer benefits, but that isn't one of them. Redemption occurs as a direct interaction between the individual and God; no institutional intermediary is involved.


And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?
"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

But the Kingdom is not a "thing", and whatever boundaries it may have are different from those that define the Catholic Church, or the Christian religion.

In some sense of "thing" it sure is. It has properties, it's the subject of predication, it's even an historical reality (so it has temporal boundaries too). What warrants the second claim?


The point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe, nation, religion, church, club, or any other group in order to be reconciled with God. Participation in such groups does indeed confer benefits, but that isn't one of them. Redemption occurs as a direct interaction between the individual and God; no institutional intermediary is involved.

I should think the point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe or nation. We don't have to be Jewish (a matter of some controversy among early Christians). Redemption is a heavily mediated process. Again, I don't buy the individualism. And I'm losing my grip on what "institutional" is supposed to mean here.


"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

Okay. But that's going to need some unpacking, isn't it? I would have thought that we seek the Kingdom within *together*, as a community of the faithful, and not individually in our separate corners.

ordinaryguy,
When Jesus said, "The kingdom is within you" He was speaking to His apostles who were to become the first bishops of His Church Kingdom on this earth.
Whether you "buy" that The Church is God's Kingdom on earth or not does not change the fact that the majority of Christians (over one billion) do believe it and are members of it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

Lets start here but first lets look at some context.

Hosanna in the highest, the Messianic King rode into Jerusalem by happenstance passed a fig tree. Christ was hungry yet the tree of life was unable to feed Christ, or anybody else for that matter. The tree was bear of fruit, only leaves. Simply being in the presence of Christ the tree, the Jewish nation, which considered itself the Kingdom of God, withered and died. Within 70 years the Jewish nation would pass.

Can you not see allegorical inferences here? We know that a Kingdom, a priestly Kingdom of God was promised to Moses on Mount Sinai, and you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6). The Pharisees considered themselves in the Kingdom of God. But, like the fig tree, they failed to bear fruit for God.

Teaching within the Temple, Christ told the parable of the land owner with a vineyard. The landowner walled in the vineyard and hired out the harvesting. When the owner sent his servants to collect the harvest they were killed. Thinking that he had to thinking more authority needed to be shown sent his son. But, they killed him also. What, the question is, should the owner do to the hirelings?

Christ's response was clear cut, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.” (Matt 21:42) Metaphorically, the stone the builder rejected was Christ, who is to be the cornerstone of the re-constituted Kingdom. Thus, Christ tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God promised in Exodus 19 would be given to another: “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits” (Cf. Matt 21: 43-46).

And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answering them and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21) The Kingdom in these verses is the same Kingdom of God promised Moses, now overseen by the Pharisees. “But first [H]e must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (Luke 17: 25) that came to pass when Christ was tried in the Sanhedrin. It can't be observed, because they were living it, just as we can't see the outcome of our current economic woes.

Catholics sometimes look to the firstfuits to explain how the Kingdom of God can be Scripturally shown. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep: For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But everyone in his own order: the firstfruits, Christ: then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming. Afterwards the end: when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father: when he shall have brought to nought all principality and power and virtue. For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Corinthians 15: 20-25). Christ hands to God everyone in their order and then afterwards delivers up the Kingdom of God, not to be confused with the Kingdom of Heaven. We know at the ascension Christ went to the Kingdom of Heaven, the abode of the Divine. Why would Christ deliver to His Father his own Kingdom, rather it is understood as the Kingdom that produced the first fruits and being the one founded on Christ, who appointed Peter as its head, who commissioned the Kingdom to Teach.

The Kingdom of God is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.

JoeT

JoeT777,
Excellent.
That IS a keeper.
With your permission I shall pass it on.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ordinaryguy,
When Jesus said, "The kingdom is within you" He was speaking to His apostles who were to become the first bishops of His Church Kingdom on this earth.Sorry, but no, he wasn't:

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said...

Whether you "buy" that The Church is God's Kingdom on earth or not does not change the fact that the majority of Christians (over one billion) do believe it and are members of it.
I can't imagine that you really think that the number of people who believe something is an accurate indicator of whether it's true or not. But if you want to go there, even assuming that your tally of one billion in favor is accurate, there are almost seven billion people in the world today, so the proposition loses by a landslide.

Let start here but first lets look at some context.
There is nothing you have to do first, before seeking the Kingdom within. All your paragraphs of "context" are an elaborate way of keeping the Kingdom of God safely confined to the outer world.


The Kingdom of God is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.

The Kingdom of God is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.

JoeT

Joe I would have to question the idea, because The Word in Christ Jesus is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation tells us of seven churches or candlesticks. Only two of the seven does God find favor in.

And I would also post that The Word in Christ Jesus says the Kingdom of God is such as little children coming to Christ.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

ordinaryguy,
Yes, I agree that we will disagree on that.
Have a Happy, prosperous New Year,
Fred

ordinaryguy,
Yes, I agree that we will disagree on that.
Yes, an agreement to disagree is better than endless disputation.

ordinaryguy.
Yes, I do agree with you on that and probably on a lot of other issues.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe I would have to question the idea, because The Word in Christ Jesus is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation tells us of seven churches or candlesticks. Only two of the seven does God find favor in.

And I would also post that The Word in Christ Jesus says the Kingdom of God is such as little children coming to Christ.

[1] -- Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

[2] -- Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

[3] -- Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

[4] --- Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I couldn't agree with you more on citations 1 through 3 above. Yes, we should encourage children to come to Christ. And yes the nature of the Kingdom of God on earth is much as little children, trusting, loving, unassuming, and unpretentious. These three citations bear more on the nature of the Kingdom of God than showing it as something other than the Catholic Church.

Your fourth citation shows precisely my point; that the Kingdom of God is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the bride of Christ. What wasn't quoted about the Kingdom of God in this passage was more important than what was.

At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them. And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:1-4)

In verse 1 in Matthew chapter 18 is the disciples over who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven (A term often used as a metonym for the Kingdom of God. However, Christ's disciples were showing an inordinate pride as the Twelve. And, like children they needed to be reminded of the need for humility. However, we already know the choice for the principal of the Twelve is; the most humble fisherman, Peter. (Cf. Matt 16: 18).

Christ found only 1 in 12 who understood that He was the Messianic King who was God, and even he was to deny Him three times. Thus we see with a lesser portion (1/12th), verus 2/7ths of the Churches in the Book of Revelations that look like a virtual multitude, Christ still completed His ministry, establishing God's Kingdom. Yet “ Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt 4:23) Teaching the good news of His Kingdom on earth, Christ “went about all the cities and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease, and every infirmity” (Matt 9: 35) The Messiah told us Himself about his ministry, “… I must preach the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent. 44 And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. ( Luke 4:43). It's overwhelming clear, the positive portion of Christ's mission was the Kingdom of God.

In fact, the Gospels can't be rightly understood unless we see Christ on his mission, selecting the Twelve Evangelists, selecting and gathering a number of followers, organizing a hierarchy; revealing parts of His hidden teaching (Cf. Matt 13: 11), and sending the Apostles on missions to preach the Kingdom.

So, just how does one reason rightly in their understanding of the Gospel with the Kingdom of God? How then are the scriptures to be read in harmony one with the other unless the Kingdom of God exists here on earth in the form of the Catholic Church? So how does ” free thinking” serve us when we must deny Christ's sacrifice for the Kingdom of God, the bride of Christ? In the exercise of undisciplined thinking, do we not become undisciplined vassals of the Kingdom? And to what reward will this bring us? Again, Disorder in the intellect causes a “disorder in the heart, and vice-versa” and thus disseminates immorality, free morals begets immorality. Good men such as us shy away from immorality, why then would we consider reasoning in an undisciplined fashion, and well beyond the intellectual walls of the Church? Who will protect us outside the City gates?

JoeT

Joe,
That's anothr good post with good reasonig.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

However, we already know the choice for the principal of the Twelve is; the most humble fisherman, Peter. (Cf. Matt 16: 18).
JoeT

In evident indentity Christ did show in scripture, asking Peter 3 times whether he loved HIM. And because Peter's replied 3 times YES, I love YOU LORD, then God revealed to Peter, Our Father's Will. I do not deny Peter's love for Christ... it was evident! And it did also show evident proof that God reveals to those who love Him...



So, just how does one reason rightly in their understanding of the Gospel with the Kingdom of God? How then are the scriptures to be read in harmony one with the other unless the Kingdom of God exists here on earth in the form of the Catholic Church?
JoeT

I believe in the simplicity of Christ. That we should not deny one child, but receive all that believe in "CHRIST".. Why? because is written in scripture.

Matthew 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

AND I would question because it is written, Can our minds be deceived from the simplicity of Christ? The simplicity of evidences offered in scripture.
1. His voice (Jhn 10:27)
2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6)
3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)





So how does ” free thinking” serve us when we must deny Christ's sacrifice for the Kingdom of God, the bride of Christ? In the exercise of undisciplined thinking, do we not become undisciplined vassals of the Kingdom? And to what reward will this bring us? Again, Disorder in the intellect causes a “disorder in the heart, and vice-versa” and thus disseminates immorality, free morals begets immorality. Good men such as us shy away from immorality, why then would we consider reasoning in an undisciplined fashion, and well beyond the intellectual walls of the Church? Who will protect us outside the City gates?


I believe in Baptism, for it offers the newness of life. Dead in Christ, to raise as Christ did. For first we do have teaching, in the law which is the lamp of the light. But those who hear His voice and walk in Christ are the ensample of what God's children believe. Love in Christ opens the door that He stands waiting to give. One's heart and mind of free will is built through experiences, and God's teaching along the way that we can reap by that which is sown. The presence of God within us, and with us, by the Holy Spirit. A child of God does the Will of their Father, just as Christ has shown us.
2 Cr 5:17-21 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Scripture does not say be converted to Catholic, but it does say all souls belong to God, and all were given free will, and all must be converted to a child of God. Doing the Will of the Our Father who sent us. A servant to Our Father. ~ In Christ

There is nothing you have to do first, before seeking the Kingdom within.
But, this isn't scripturally based. I thought you were one of those who held that our relation with God should be ruled by the Bible alone? Do you suppose that Christ teases us with a kingdom that can't be achieved? The following shows that the Kingdom is to be sought out and that we are to do this first:

1. Luke 12:31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. 32 Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your...

2. Matt 6: 33 Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow;...

3. Luke 17:20 And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come,. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall...

4. Luke 11:9 And I say to you: Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find:... of God cast out devils, doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you.. .


All your paragraphs of "context" are an elaborate way of keeping the Kingdom of God safely confined to the outer world.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.
First, I don't make the claim that the Kingdom of God is mine, nor is the intent to withhold citizenship within this Kingdom from anybody. Scripture shows us that it belongs to all who call on it; “whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose it shall preserve it.”


In evident indentity Christ did show in scripture, asking Peter 3 times whether he loved HIM. And because Peter's replied 3 times YES, I love YOU LORD, then God revealed to Peter, Our Father's Will. I do not deny Peter's love for Christ... it was evident! And it did also show evident proof that God reveals to those who love Him...
Yes it was to Peter that it was first revealed that God walked among them. Yes he loved Christ. And if we too love God, then we must first seek out the Kingdom ; and Peter was its first Vicar. But, to know this we first need to see how this Kingdom came to being through Peter and the other Eleven. We know that the Kingdom is a priestly Kingdom of God promised to Moses on Mount Sinai, “and you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (et vos eritis mihi in regnum sacerdotale, et gens sancta.) (Exodus 19:6). There cannot be two Kingdoms of God, thus we see in Matt 21:43 as it were, a changing of the guard from the chosen people of the twelve tribes to Christ's followers and the Twelve Apostles.

The Twelve were not simply priestly ministers of truth; the Twelve were not simply representatives of the 12 tribes. The Apostles were the “loaves of proposition” Unlike the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, these twelve were the only loaves that the Son of David, The Messiah, found within his temple. (Cf. 1 Sam 21:6). As you remember David went to the high priest Achimelech for bread. The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” These loves were unleavened, uncommon bread; the holy bread to be consumed (metaphoric vision of the real presence in the Eucharist - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm)

"Bread of the faces", i.e. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). 'ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" The loaves of bread spoken of here formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. (New Advent) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09317b.htm)

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) has been set up. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stakes of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. The loaves were in the presence of God, hence the name presence-bread.

“And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, 21 Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses”

Christ being the fulfillment of the Old Testament which we know requires each and everything He did to be related to the temple as prophase requires. Holding this view we see the Twelve Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars. Important is that the first time the tabernacle the Twelve loaves were in the presence of God, and when He held the bread Christ said at the last supper “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread”. The nourishment of the Twelve Loaves isto be consumed every time they preached the Kingdom of God; they nourish the masses with the body and blood of Christ and the knowledge of the Kingdom. Still further, at the end of their time, new freshly baked loaves were replaced, with new “.

In conclusion, for me, this adds a new dimension to standing before the tabernacle of the Kingdom of God. Partaking of the “real presence” is participating in the Old and New Kingdom as well as a personal relationship with the crucified Christ. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being the sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New. What is happening in Matthew 16 is THE MOST important sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God. Only after Peter confessed was he exposed to the presence of God; who was Most Holy Sacrificial Lamb. Thus when Christ says, “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The intent is crystal clear to 12 Jewish Apostles. Christ was God, Peter was to be the head of the Church – that same church, the same Kingdom, is what we call the Roman Catholic Church. It's authority is of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


I believe in the simplicity of Christ. That we should not deny one child, but receive all that believe in "CHRIST".. Why? because [it] is written in scripture.

Matthew 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

AND I would question because it is written, Can our minds be deceived from the simplicity of Christ? The simplicity of evidences offered in scripture.
1. His voice (Jhn 10:27)
2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6)
3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)


The parable of the wheat and tars requires us to believe in the Kingdom of God. Its therein we shall find fertile ground in which to grow our faith. And the consequence of planting our faith in that fertile ground is more efficacious for spiritual growth. Taken in this context I can only agree with that immediately above.


I believe in Baptism, for it offers the newness of life. Dead in Christ, to raise as Christ did. For first we do have teaching, in the law which is the lamp of the light. But those who hear His voice and walk in Christ are the ensample of what God's children believe. Love in Christ opens the door that He stands waiting to give. One's heart and mind of free will is built through experiences, and God's teaching along the way that we can reap by that which is sown. The presence of God within us, and with us, by the Holy Spirit. A child of God does the Will of their Father, just as Christ has shown us.

2 Cr 5:17-21 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Scripture does not say be converted to Catholic, but it does say all souls belong to God, and all were given free will, and all must be converted to a child of God. Doing the Will of the Our Father who sent us. A servant to Our Father. ~ In Christ

The Sacred Scriptures are very clear, in the concept of the Kingdom of God. You cannot read scripture without it – it becomes textually meaningless, because we are taught to seek out the Kingdom of God; not simply do the will of God. We can't sit on our duff and say, I believe in God, I believe in Christ and DO nothing; our faith requires, demands, a response. That response requires that we partake of the bread of life (see John 6) and that can only be found in the Catholic Church. "Tradition of the Church proclaims. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."

JoeT

sndbay,
In the early days of Christianity there was no need to covert to The Church with Peter as it's head for all the apostles who were building The Church which later became known as the universal or Catholic Church were all of Jesus Christ's Assembly which He called MY Church.
There were no denominations way back then, Only The Church and a few that were heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay,
In the early days of Christianity there was no need to covert to The Church with Peter as it's head for all the apostles who were building The Church which later became known as the universal or Catholic Church were all of Jesus Christ's Assembly which He called MY Church.
There were no denominations way back then, Only The Church and a few that were heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I have only one way and that way is Christ.

(John 14:6) I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And when we speak of The Word which was made flesh, we eat of it. ~In Christ

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

~In Christ

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Are some of you saying the Catholic church is NOT a denomination?

Get real.

Galveston,
I am historically REAL!!
The Church was not a denomination until after the reformation.
That's several hundred years after Jesus founded it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That response requires that we partake of the bread of life (see John 6) and that can only be found in the Catholic Church. "Tradition of the Church proclaims. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."

JoeT

The bread of life came from Heaven, so to say it can only be found in the Catholic Church is against what is written and fore told by Christ. The bread is Christ, The Word made flesh.

We can not trade Christ in, and say the Catholic Church alone is the fullfillment to obtain salvation. That would be giving up the love of Christ to follow the church. Christ said I am the way...

Are some of you saying the Catholic church is NOT a denomination??

Get real.

Yes. What I'm saying is that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, the Kingdom of God.

And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. (John 17:20-23)

JoeT

Joe,
Right you are.
AND
I pray that someday all will be one with Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The bread of life came from Heaven, so to say it can only be found in the Catholic Church is against what is written and fore told by Christ. The bread is Christ, The Word made flesh.

Yes, the bread is Christ, “I am the bread of life.” And as those who followed Moses ate manna, Christ offered himself, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

If there was any ambiguity of the real presence it is removed in the next few verses, “I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.” (John 6) Eat real flesh of Christ, drink the real blood of Christ.


We can not trade Christ in, and say the Catholic Church alone is the fullfillment to obtain salvation. That would be giving up the love of Christ to follow the church. Christ said I am the way...

The RC doctrine holds that other denomination are not deprived of the mystery of salvation, but fall short of the fullness of means of salvation. Though deficient, salvation is not denied as if it was obtained in fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. (THANK A CATHOLIC POPE FOR YOUR SALVATION - for what he binds is bound in heaven; what is unbound is unbound in heaven.) Whereas, many in the Protestant world would charge the RC Church of paganism, demonism, and thus be damned; the Church holds that other Christian faiths can find salvation. Even still, “For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." (Cf Unitatis Redinegratio November 1964)

JoeT

You provided neither an argument nor scriptural support. You just asserted that they are the same. No evidence, no argument, no logic, no reasoning, just smug supercilious assertion.

Still contradicting yourself. You claim I provided no Scripture support, then you quote the Scripture I provided saying:

The text you quoted,

Quote:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


is about how to behave in church, and doesn't even mention the Kingdom of God, much less establish it's equivalence to the Church.

As usual, you don't understand Christian doctrine, therefore you don't understand what we are talking about.

God is King of Kings, therefore His House is His Kingdom:

Apocalypse 17

14 These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful.


I already showed from scripture that they are not the same. And you really have nothing to say about whether I have anything to say on the matter.

You showed nothing of the kind. You simply have an opinion. We have another opinion which we can support with Scripture and Tradition.


It matters because equating the Kingdom to the Church distorts the meaning of the parable and diminishes the inclusiveness of the Kingdom of God. Why does it matter?
You haven't supported your opinion with anything, so it's hard to tell what it rests on, except your supremely self-satisfied air of superiority. Rational thought, careful reading, and a common sense interpretation of language.

You just picked up the Bible for the first time and you think you can instruct us on it? The Bible is inspired by the Spirit of God. Unless you have that Spirit. And Atheists don't. By definition, you don't understand the Scriptures. Plain and simple. All you have is your misunderstanding of the Scripture.

But, this isn’t scripturally based. I thought you were one of those who held that our relation with God should be ruled by the Bible alone? ....

Unless he has very recently converted, he's an atheist.

Unless he has very recently converted, he's an atheist.

So now I'm really confused! Then why does he have a dog in this hunt?

So now I'm really confused! Then why does he have a dog in this hunt?

I don't know. The atheists are trickling back into this forum a bit at a time. It must be slow in the Religious discussion area.

Fred, I have only one way and that way is Christ.

Why do you separate Christ and His Church? Christ didn't:

Acts 9:4
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?


Note that Jesus says, "why do you persecute ME".

But whom was Saul persecuting?

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

There is nothing you have to do first, before seeking the Kingdom within.

But, this isn’t scripturally based.
You say the statement isn't scripturally based, and then quote two verses of scripture that say almost word for word the same thing. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with about this, but apparently it isn't me.

1. Luke 12:31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.

2. Matt 6: 33 Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

I thought you were one of those who held that our relation with God should be ruled by the Bible alone?
No, I'm not "one of those".

Unless he has very recently converted, he's an atheist.

I am not now, and have never been an atheist, but I do seem to have a very different understanding of God than you do.

You say the statement isn't scripturally based, and then quote two verses of scripture that say almost word for word the exact same thing. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with about this, but apparently it isn't me.

What was intended was a response to; there is nothing you have to do first before seeking the Kingdom of God. My response was that there was something to do, and that something was to seek the Kingdom first.


No, I'm not "one of those". Ok, you’re not atheist, you’re not “one of those” – I got it, you are Catholic? Right?

JoeT

JoeT777,
Right again.
Wouldn't it be nice if other hostile denominations were as loving and caring for other denominations as it the Catholic Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What was intended was a response to; there is nothing you have to do first before seeking the Kingdom of God. My response was that there was something to do, and that something was to seek the Kingdom first.


That's right. And there's also something about baptism. Jn.3.5: "no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit."

Akoue,
John 3:5 is one of my favorite verses for it is so very clear.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Christians not being very christian and of course those that pretend to be to bait the christian, nothing changing,

Thread closed