[classyT]

Snd,

The Bride of Christ... is the Church of Christ according to the scriptures. There will be a marriage supper of the lamb. The New Jerusalem is a place the bride ( the body of Christ) will dwell with Him... forever.

[450donn]

Joet,
Yes, I do agree with you. They did not!!!
It was Jesus who said to his followers that then one who serves most serves best.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, are you trying to quote JN12;26? If anyone serves me he must follow me;and where I am there my servent will be also, if anyone serves me the father will HONOR him.
Or is it HE 12;28?
Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
No sure what translation you are using to get "best" out of, Mine sure doesn't read like that.

[sndbay]

Snd,

The Bride of Christ...is the Church of Christ according to the scriptures. There will be a marriage supper of the lamb. The New Jerusalem is a place the bride ( the body of Christ) will dwell with Him....forever.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I have always trusted that we hope to be dressed in white linen, able to attend the wedding.

Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

And that God will rejoice over those dressed in white linen

Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

SORRY
interesting thread possible, off thread

[arcura]

sndbay,
Yes lets get back to the thread topic.
What reasons are there for Jesus to have established His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

sndbay,
Yes lets get back to the thread topic.
What reasons are there for Jesus to have established His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I had hope the idea might spark a light of truth concerning the thread discussion. Jesus was the corner stone, the first born.

When we follow Christ in confession that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and walk in One Fath being HIS doctrine, then we have unity of fellowship in Christ. That would be the established church known as HIS church and members of HIS One Body.

Thus we rejoice in the LORD, because our souls are joyful in God, our hearts circumcised, and our flesh now walks having the spirit, a good conscience toward God; for He hath clothed us with the garments of salvation, He hath covered us with the robe of righteousness. (As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels) There is grace for grace brought forth in preparation for a new Jerusalem.

~In Christ

[JoeT777]

“Under the fig tree I knew you” (John 1:48): Where do I know you from? Not to unusual a question when a familiar face jogs the memory. The question isn't 'where' did we meet but 'from what source' do you hail, i.e. who sent you. This, on the other hand, is an unusual question to ask, you don't normally ask 'who sent you'. Nathanael's question went straight to the quick; he was obviously a blunt person. This is the type of person whose conversations are 'eye to eye,' without any pretense. In fact in this scene John seems to be sketching Nathanael as measuring up Christ; he draws himself up, setting himself face to face with Christ but turns to Philip to ask, “Can anything of good come from Nazareth? ” Christ immediately recognized the intangible qualities of the man; “no guile” here.

In response to Nathanael's question to Christ, he got, what would seem perfectly ordinary response, “Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” This can be taken to mean that Christ had his eye on Nathanael for selection as an Apostle – ordinary small talk. John had more in mind with these verses than to waste precious words on simple conversation. There's a undercurrent of a parallel at play. The clue to a parallel is the unusual response given by Nathanael, “Rabbi: You are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.” Now, that's a strange response, or was it?

The fig tree is a symbol that runs deep in Judaism. It was more than a national symbol, it was a symbol of the Kingdom of God, a priestly nation, “And Juda, and Israel, dwelt without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25). It was a symbol of the comfort in nationalism the Old Covenant brings. However, there is a prophetic image conveyed by the imagery of the fig tree, “I saw their fathers like the firstfruits of the fig tree in the top thereof: but they went in to Beelphegor (the baal of Mt. Phogor), and alienated themselves to that confusion, and became abominable, as those things were, which they loved.” Hosea 9:10. The ultimate outcome of which we get to see in Matthew, fib tree was unfruitful (The Jewish sons of the first Covenant had not answered God's call to holiness).

Nathaniel was one of those who followed the one who was crying in the wilderness, St. John the Baptist. So Christ's response would have explicitly understood as recalling Hosea, “The days of visitation have come, the days of repaying have come: know, O Israel, that the prophet was foolish, the spiritual man was mad, for the multitude of your iniquity, and the multitude of your madness. The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: the prophet has become a snare of ruin upon all his ways, madness is in the house of his God. They have sinned deeply, as in the days of Gabaa: he will remember their iniquity, and will visit their sin.” (Hosea 9:7-9). The parallels in John chapter 1 are so strong that every first century Jew would have understood Christ was to take the Seat of Moses replacing a spiritual barren land for a kingdom where, “For the Lord your God will bring you into a good land…wherein fig trees and pomegranates, and oliveyards grow: a land of oil and honey. (Deut. 8:7-8).

In the most innocuous verse we find a call to a new Kingdom. The very same Kingdom promised Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The nation of Israel which failed to bear first fruit, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” (Matt 21:43-44).

The Kingdom of God, the New Covenant, what history produced in the Roman Catholic Church, can be found even sitting in the shade of a fig tree. This we see even in the most inconsequential Scriptural verses Christ's ministry to bring us the Kingdom of God.

But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light 1 Peter 2:9

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thou art indeed a bible scholar.
I so much enjoy your posts regarding holy Scripture.
You tie it together so nicely that it is easy to contemplate AND understand.
Thanks much,
Fred

[elscarta]

dividing the word of Truth.....

ClassyT could you please explain what you meant by the above quote.

[gromitt82]

I will not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia when the views given are not backed up by a solid Bible base.

It is as I feared, even when you can agree on a point, you still have to disagree with me because I am not a member of your denomination.

That's sad, and shows why the ecumenical movement will never go anywhere.

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
c) If you believe the 2 above facts then it should follow that there must be some kind of divine intervention in Mary's pregnancy and consequently, in Jesus' birth.
d) Do you or do you not believe in the Holy Trinity?
e) Do you or do you not believe that what is written in the Gospels muest be substantially what Jesus preached during his life?

If you do, these in my opinion are basic concepts that unite us. And if you do, chances are that sooner or later the ecumenic efforts to join all denominations may finally succeed.

As a matter of fact, the Anglican CHurch and the RCC are sustaining rather constructive conversations in this regard.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus all right.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

[TUT317]

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Gromitt82

Gromitt, if you don't mind I would like to borrow one of your dot points to highlight my previous argument.

Your example (b) Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God.

This is a complex proposition which can be broken down into basic subject/predicate sentences. Jesus(subject) is the son of God(predicate) and God(subject) is the father of Jesus(predicate). The two sentences are joined by the logical connective 'and'. When joined together these two sentences are logically consistent. In other words, we don't require any additional knowledge to know its truth. We know it is true just by looking at the structure of the sentence.

Now the important point is that this sentence is NOT a fact.
"Jesus rode on the back of a donkey" is a fact. By that I mean that it is possible to verify at some point in history if a person called Jesus rode on the back of a donkey. I think it is possible to come to some sort of agreement/disagreement over this fact.

But why are they two different types of propositions? "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey". Even though they are both of the subject/predicate type they are completely different. They are GRAMMATICALLY similar but not LOGICALLY similar.

Proposition (b) is a general proposition of the subject/predicate form which cannot be broken down any further. To break it down only confuses matters. Because it cannot be broken down further we have to accept it as it is.

From my point of view I BELIEVE THAT (b) IS TRUE because it is written. However, I acknowledge that there are other people in this world who do not believe (b). How can I show them that (b) or similar propositions are true?

There are only two possibilities.
(a) Show them where it is written in the Bible.
(b) Show them the self evident structure of the proposition

In the final analysis if someone were to reject my two possibilities, just above (a) and (b) then this is not logically inconsistent on their part. There is nothing we can do about it. You accept it or your don't. Trying to break it down into facts does not work for these types of propositions.

Interestingly enough, I think your last proposition, (e) Do you or do you not believe what is written in the Gospels must be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? --This is of the factual kind and can be verified.

[galveston]

I am sorry you keep on bestowing more importance to the tiny differences that separate the different denominations than the the great and basic facts that unite us:

a) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus' mother was the Virgin Mary?Yes
b) Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?Yes
c) If you believe the 2 above facts then it should follow that there must be some kind of divine intervention in Mary's pregnancy and consequently, in Jesus' birth. dsMary's pregnancy, or her mother's? Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost, her mother was not.
d) Do you or do you not believe in the Holy Trinity? Yes
e) Do you or do you not believe that what is written in the Gospels muest be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? Yes This very point is why I will hold to what the Apostles wrote in their histories of Jesus and the early Church.

If you do, these in my opinion are basic concepts that unite us. And if you do, chances are that sooner or later the ecumenic efforts to join all denominations may finally succeed.

As a matter of fact, the Anglican CHurch and the RCC are sustaining rather constructive conversations in this regard.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus alright.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

I'm not buying into any supposed apparitions or visions.

Keep this in mind:

2 Cor 11:14-15
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(KJV)

Regardless of what an apparitioin looks like or says, it can be as false as Satan himself. The whole thing is extra-Biblical and if you rely on it you are sure to be deceived.

[classyT]

ClassyT could you please explain what you meant by the above quote.

Sure, it means not taking things out of context... understanding WHO is writing, WHO it is written to, and Why it was written... I believe that MOST Christians... ( myself included) need to always remember this when reading the Bible. :)

[paraclete]

On the other hand, I'm somewhat surprised to see that you completely skip my mention of the Virgin's apparitions in the 20th Century.
They certainly could not be substantiated by the Bible because it was written 20 to 40 centuries ago.

You look to me like St. Thomas who had to put his fingers on Jesus' wounds to believe the He was Jesus alright.

Do you or do you not believe in the Virgin's apparitions that happened last century?

I am curious to see what you have to answer to the above questions.

Gromitt82

Gromitt you have a pecular view of the Bible. Biblical prophesy has indeed fortold events many centuries ahead and even in the twentieth century but it makes little mention of Mary beyond her role in the birth of Jesus. What then are we to think about these non biblical events associated with Mary. Are we to think that God was taken by surprise by the twentieth century and he needed some additional weight to overcome the opposition. What the Bible says is that an evil generation looks for a sign so we need to be very careful about such signs and the motivations behind them. The veneration and elevation of Mary beyond her biblical role is a deception. Christ is the redeemer

[arcura]

gromitt82,
I'm sure that there are more things and bible teachings that are believed by most all denominations than the few you mentioned.
Leaders of several denominations have met in the recent past to discuss more unity.
That is a very hopeful sign, I do believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[gromitt82]

Gromitt, if you don't mind I would like to borrow one of your dot points to highlight my previous argument.

Your example (b) Do you not believe that Jesus is the son of God.

This is a complex proposition which can be broken down into basic subject/predicate sentences. Jesus(subject) is the son of God(predicate) and God(subject) is the father of Jesus(predicate). The two sentences are joined by the logical connective 'and'. When joined together these two sentences are logically consistent. In other words, we don't require any additional knowledge to know its truth. We know it is true just by looking at the structure of the sentence.

Now the important point is that this sentence is NOT a fact.
"Jesus rode on the back of a donkey" is a fact. By that I mean that it is possible to verify at some point in history if a person called Jesus rode on the back of a donkey. I think it is possible to come to some sort of agreement/disagreement over this fact.

But why are they two different types of propositions? "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus rode on the back of a donkey". Even though they are both of the subject/predicate type they are completely different. They are GRAMMATICALLY similar but not LOGICALLY similar.

Proposition (b) is a general proposition of the subject/predicate form which cannot be broken down any further. To break it down only confuses matters. Because it cannot be broken down further we have to accept it as it is.

From my point of view I BELIEVE THAT (b) IS TRUE because it is written. However, I acknowledge that there are other people in this world who do not believe (b). How can I show them that (b) or similar propositions are true?

There are only two possibilities.
(a) Show them where it is written in the Bible.
(b) Show them the self evident structure of the proposition

In the final analysis if someone were to reject my two possibilities, just above (a) and (b) then this is not logically inconsistent on their part. There is nothing we can do about it. You accept it or your don't. Trying to break it down into facts does not work for these types of propositions.

Interestingly enough, I think your last proposition, (e) Do you or do you not believe what is written in the Gospels must be substantially what Jesus preached during his life? --This is of the factual kind and can be verified.

It had never occurred me trying to analize whether or not Jesus is God's Son through a syntactical analysis. For two obvious reasons. I was never too god at syntactical analysis. I could not care less about subjects and predicates when it comes to believe whether God sent His Son to our beautiful planet to redeem us...

On the other hand, I DO NOT THINK either that believing what the Gospels say is more factual than believing Jesus is God's Son. If the latter cannot be verified to believe the former implies a lot of faith too.
There is actually - unless I'm awfully wrong - any way to factually prove that what the Apostles wrote were in fact the very words Jesus said.
Yet, we believe them because we have faith the Jesus is God's Son and therefore, these Words are likely to be those Jesus actually pronounced, for they are basically the same a loving father would tell his sons, and this is what we are, Jesus' sons.

When we read in History books that Julius Caesar said "allea jacta est" when doubting whether or nor to cross the Rubicon river, we believe it hook, line and sinker. We do not even stop to ponder whether this might be the invention of some historian...

But, when we are told by the Apostles -who are also historians in a way-
That Jesus is God's Son, then we start to mull over the possibility this might be a fake argument!

If I may add something to your statement I would say we all are extremely gullible when it comes to when our Governments tell us how much they love us -and this can be easily verified to a be a big lie - whereas we tend to doubt Jesus' love when he gied in the Cross for us...

Is not that a sign that we are not as bright as we think we are?

Gromitt82

[gromitt82]

I'm not buying into any supposed apparitions or visions.

Keep this in mind:

2 Cor 11:14-15
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(KJV)

Regardless of what an apparitioin looks like or says, it can be as false as Satan himself. The whole thing is extra-Biblical and if you rely on it you are sure to be deceived.

Congratulations, my dear friend, for I see that what unite us is by far more important and vital than what separate us.

So there are still big hopes for both of us, which does not mean that you have to fully accept what I say no more than I have to accept what you say. Perhaps, one good day, people like you and I, will find the right way in between.

As for believing or not in apparitions, this is simply a matter of opinion, although, of course, if you have never been to one of these places your own opinion cannot be very objective, as proven by the fact that infer the possibility they are the work of Satan, without having appreciated the consequences.

I wonder whether Satan would have appreciated that the results of these apparitions (were they his responsibility) would the building of great Basilicas and the conversion of hundreds of thousands... As we say in Spanish he would be throwing stones at his own roof, don't you think?

[gromitt82]

Gromitt you have a pecular view of the Bible. Biblical prophesy has indeed fortold events many centuries ahead and even in the twentieth century but it makes little mention of Mary beyond her role in the birth of Jesus. What then are we to think about these non biblical events associated with Mary. Are we to think that God was taken by surprise by the twentieth century and he needed some additional weight to overcome the opposition. What the Bible says is that an evil generation looks for a sign so we need to be very careful about such signs and the motivations behind them. The veneration and elevation of Mary beyond her biblical role is a deception. Christ is the redeemer

While I could not agree with you more that Christ is our redeemer, I wonder what events have the Bible foretold in the 20th century?

For the rest you may care to read what I write about the Virgin Mary to our colleague Galveston in this very thread...

[gromitt82]

gromitt82,
I'm sure that there are more things and bible teachings that are believed by most all denominations than the few you mentioned.
Leaders of several denominations have met in the recent past to discuss more unity.
That is a very hopeful sign, I do believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Of course, there are many more, although it depends on the Denominations. I am totally hopeful, though I may not be able to beaar witness of it, unfortunately.
Gromitt82

[galveston]

We have thoroughly hijacked Fred's thread, Sorry Fred.

Let's take this discussion to the religious discussions forum.

I will launch one titled "Jesus the man and the Immaculate Conception"..

[arcura]

gromitt82,
Excellent several posts.
Thank you.
Fred