Rust never sleeps
BBC NEWS | UK | Most 'do not believe in nativity'
|
Rust never sleeps
BBC NEWS | UK | Most 'do not believe in nativity'
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”.Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
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
Serpent seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daniel Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Then you have no free will - when you sin - the seed made you do it - right?Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
Hm? I'm on a Christian forum providing the Word of God as support for my argument. What did you expect, Freud?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
I'm not persuaded that any reasonable definition of "Church" is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.
Why does it matter? Are you Catholic or Christian?Quote:
That you would equate the two makes me think that your view of the Kingdom is impossibly narrow and restrictive.
My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture. Upon what do you rest yours?
This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow from your analysis of the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Akoue
Greed,
Fred
Well, yes, it does. I'll repeat it for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
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?
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.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.
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.Quote:
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.
It matters because equating the Kingdom to the Church distorts the meaning of the parable and diminishes the inclusiveness of the Kingdom of God.Quote:
Why does it matter?
Why does it matter?Quote:
Are you Catholic or Christian?
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.Quote:
My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture.
Rational thought, careful reading, and a common sense interpretation of language.Quote:
Upon what do you rest yours?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
I'm not sure what you mean by "identical in form". The claims strike me as quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
"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.)Quote:
The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual matter,
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.Quote:
and that membership in this or that group has no bearing on it whatsoever.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
"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.)
Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it precedes and enables communion with both God and others.Quote:
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.
No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Again, the Church does not teach this.Quote:
No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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 17Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguyThe 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 …
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguyYes, 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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
I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The RC Church has not changed - in 2,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.
JoeTQuote:
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
I'm unaware of any change in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Yes, the very same John the Baptist who said:Quote:
You might recall John the Baptist, as foreseen in Isaiah's prophesies, heralded the coming of the Messiah.
The similarity with this experience early in Jesus' public ministry is striking:Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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
Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.Quote:
Is our Christ so cruel that he would send his children out to seek that which can't be found?
Quote:
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
Nope, sorry, I'm still not buying it.Quote:
The Kingdom is the Church today
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".Quote:
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.
Given that so many others do exist, I don't see how this little rhetorical gambit helps to make your case.Quote:
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.
This 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.Quote:
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 3:5-8
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I thought not.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
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.
And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?Quote:
Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.
Cute.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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 Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.Quote:
And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.
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
Lets start here but first lets look at some context.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM. |