Resurrection

[Goodbook]

the dead in Christ rise first right? Then Jesus gathers all believers, and any still living at the time of his coming. Then we will be with him at his millenium Kingdom, which he is bringing to earth (as it is in heaven) and then at the end of thousand years, those outside, the wicked be burned up in hell. THEN the new earth and new heaven will be complete and perfect.

So why is it some people believe that upon death, judgement day has already happened and believers already in heaven? I thought their souls were resting in paradise with the Lord before Heaven is opened. They haven't received their glorified bodies yet. I don't see anyone rising to Heaven the way Jesus did.

Says in the bible that, no man can enter until the 7 plagues are finished.
Its clear in the Bible that those 7 plagues are for the entire earth. Although a remnant will be saved. Most of us will die in the Lord or be killed, as long as we haven't taken the mark of the beast.


Am I misinterpeting scripture or are other people believing or teaching something totally different? Cos it seems like many christians believe in some kind of rapture BEFORE resurrection. As resurrection happens at the twinkling of an eye and every eye is actually going to see Jesus, I just don't understand why others believe something completely different. This is the trouble, you think, as we christians, the bible simple and straightforward, but then you come across some other kind of teaching that is completely opposite yet still claims it is christian and biblical.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh right?
He was buried and raised right? He did not just die and his spirit went to heaven, his entire soul, body and spirit was raised and transfigured. His body was glorified, was it not? It was still him, he wasn't reincarnated, he still had the marks on his hands and feet. He did not disappear secretly...people saw him!

 

[ViaCrucis]

the dead in Christ rise first right? Then Jesus gathers all believers, and any still living at the time of his coming. Then we will be with him at his millenium Kingdom, which he is bringing to earth (as it is in heaven) and then at the end of thousand years, those outside, the wicked be burned up in hell. THEN the new earth and new heaven will be complete and perfect

That would be a Millennialist perspective, but most Christians aren't and historically haven't been Millennialists. But yes, we do believe that at Christ's Parousia the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we who are alive at His coming shall be transformed with them, from perishable to imperishable, and shall live and dwell with Christ God forever and ever in God's renewed and redeemed creation--new heavens and new earth.

So why is it some people believe that upon death, judgement day has already happened and believers already in heaven? I thought their souls were resting in paradise with the Lord before Heaven is opened. They haven't received their glorified bodies yet. I don't see anyone rising to Heaven the way Jesus did.

Nobody has ascended to Heaven as Christ did because Christ is Christ; His ascension was to take up His royal seat at the right hand of the Father as Lord over all things. The historic Christian view is that between death and resurrection we shall be with the Lord; it is what we have called the "intermediate state". Some have taken to calling it "going to Heaven" but that isn't how Scripture describes it--in fact Scripture hardly touches on it at all.

Says in the bible that, no man can enter until the 7 plagues are finished.
Its clear in the Bible that those 7 plagues are for the entire earth. Although a remnant will be saved. Most of us will die in the Lord or be killed, as long as we haven't taken the mark of the beast.

That might be your opinion about the Apocalypse of St. John because you're a Futurist; but just like most Christians aren't Millennialists, most Christians aren't necessarily Futurists either. That is, we don't read the Apocalypse as a text predicting the future.

Am I misinterpeting scripture or are other people believing or teaching something totally different? Cos it seems like many christians believe in some kind of rapture BEFORE resurrection. As resurrection happens at the twinkling of an eye and every eye is actually going to see Jesus, I just don't understand why others believe something completely different. This is the trouble, you think, as we christians, the bible simple and straightforward, but then you come across some other kind of teaching that is completely opposite yet still claims it is christian and biblical.

What you are describing is called Dispensationalism, the belief that there will be a future period of seven years of tribulation, just prior to which there will be a "rapture" of the "true Christians" taken into heaven while the rest of the planet faces demonic locust plagues and all the like. Dispensationalism is pretty popular as a very fringe, minority position in Christianity, one will not find it among mainstream, historic Christian Churches such as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or Anglicans. And even then, it remains almost entirely an American thing, though it was begun by an ex-priest of the Church of Ireland, John Nelson Darby, in the early 19th century.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh right?
He was buried and raised right? He did not just die and his spirit went to heaven, his entire soul, body and spirit was raised and transfigured. His body was glorified, was it not? It was still him, he wasn't reincarnated, he still had the marks on his hands and feet. He did not disappear secretly...people saw him!

Correct. And when He comes, on the Last Day, as Judge of the quick and the dead we who belong to Him shall likewise be raised up and transformed, as St. Paul says in Philippians 3, "He shall conform our lowly body like that of His glorious body". And so shall we ever be with the Lord, world without end.

In the Apostles' Creed we confess our belief in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. In the Nicene Creed, likewise, we confess our belief in the resurrection of the dead. The body shall rise, on the Last Day, the perishable putting on the imperishable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Goodbook]

hmm ok thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess on forums there's lots of americans by sheer numbers and dispensationalism is a popular doctrine, but, it is quite foreign to me. Yet people firmly believe in it.

I have kinda settled there is a millenium period, but I suppose some ppl may interpret the 1000 years as not literal.
As for futurist, I would say that revelation has lots of symbolism and can apply to every believer not just those living now, but right back to when it was first written down, so...I guess from my personal perspective of not actually seeing any plagues (not that this has not happened in the past) I think of it as future. As is judgment day, and the end of the world (we are not in Heaven now, by any means!)

As for the rest, that's quite clear and I'm glad we agree on those scriptures.

 

[pathfinder777]

That would be a Millennialist perspective, but most Christians aren't and historically haven't been Millennialists. But yes, we do believe that at Christ's Parousia the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we who are alive at His coming shall be transformed with them, from perishable to imperishable, and shall live and dwell with Christ God forever and ever in God's renewed and redeemed creation--new heavens and new earth.



Nobody has ascended to Heaven as Christ did because Christ is Christ; His ascension was to take up His royal seat at the right hand of the Father as Lord over all things. The historic Christian view is that between death and resurrection we shall be with the Lord; it is what we have called the "intermediate state". Some have taken to calling it "going to Heaven" but that isn't how Scripture describes it--in fact Scripture hardly touches on it at all.



That might be your opinion about the Apocalypse of St. John because you're a Futurist; but just like most Christians aren't Millennialists, most Christians aren't necessarily Futurists either. That is, we don't read the Apocalypse as a text predicting the future.



What you are describing is called Dispensationalism, the belief that there will be a future period of seven years of tribulation, just prior to which there will be a "rapture" of the "true Christians" taken into heaven while the rest of the planet faces demonic locust plagues and all the like. Dispensationalism is pretty popular as a very fringe, minority position in Christianity, one will not find it among mainstream, historic Christian Churches such as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or Anglicans. And even then, it remains almost entirely an American thing, though it was begun by an ex-priest of the Church of Ireland, John Nelson Darby, in the early 19th century.



Correct. And when He comes, on the Last Day, as Judge of the quick and the dead we who belong to Him shall likewise be raised up and transformed, as St. Paul says in Philippians 3, "He shall conform our lowly body like that of His glorious body". And so shall we ever be with the Lord, world without end.

In the Apostles' Creed we confess our belief in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. In the Nicene Creed, likewise, we confess our belief in the resurrection of the dead. The body shall rise, on the Last Day, the perishable putting on the imperishable.

-CryptoLutheran

thank you for the good post!

 

[Goodbook]

I am thinking of these creeds, you said apostle and nicea..what is the difference? I know they not in the bible but they are biblically based.
I notice that some churches dont really say what they believe and their statements of faith add all these other things...is this why, in some churches I been to I find believers believing really weird doctrines? Then it seem to erode the basic belief in Jesus, like they are taking away from his birth, death, burial and resurrection.

Or some part seems missing. I'm afraid they wont even realise this till its too late...and they might be just playing at being christians all that time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am thinking of these creeds, you said apostle and nicea..what is the difference? I know they not in the bible but they are biblically based.
I notice that some churches dont really say what they believe and their statements of faith add all these other things...is this why, in some churches I been to I find believers believing really weird doctrines? Then it seem to erode the basic belief in Jesus, like they are taking away from his birth, death, burial and resurrection.

Or some part seems missing. I'm afraid they wont even realise this till its too late...and they might be just playing at being christians all that time.

What we usually call the Nicene Creed is more technically known as the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed.

In the 4th century the new emperor in the West Constantine and his co-emperor in the East Licinius put forward an edict of toleration, thereby officially ending State persecution against Christians (this followed a period of the worst persecution the Church had ever endured under the reign of Diocletian). During this time in Egypt a presbyter named Arius became offended when his bishop, Alexander (bishop of Alexandria, Egypt) stated that Jesus, the Son, had always existed. Arius, who may have been a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, accused his bishop of heresy, but in the end a local council of bishops in Egypt found it was Arius who, by saying that the Son was a creature, was teaching heresy.

Arius left Egypt for Palestine, and his teachings were more respected there. However within time Arius' teachings erupted into open debate and controversy, it was said that one could scarcely in the Eastern half of the Roman Empire go to the market for a loaf of bread without getting into a debate over whether the Son was eternal or a creature.

This controversy broke out not long after Constantine had defeated Licinius and became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, and had shifted the center of power from Rome to Byzantium, renamed Constantinople--the City of Constantine.

Constantine during his reign had converted to the Christian faith, and had become the most powerful patron of the Christian religion in the empire, sponsoring the building of Christian churches across the empire. With the unification of the empire under Constantine, this major theological conflict seemed to threaten the unity of his favored religion, and in order to try and bring it to conclusion he invited and summoned the largest gathering of Christian bishops at that point in history, to meet in the city of Nicea near Byzantium, to settle the matter once and for all. Tradition states that as many as 318 bishops met in one place. This was in the summer of the year 325.

The outcome of the council was a nearly unanimous agreement that Arius was wrong, and that--indeed--the Son is true God, uncreated, that being begotten of the Father does not make Him a creature, He is instead "begotten, not made" that He is homoousios (of the same substance) as God the Father and thus true and same God as the Father. They put these things into a confession or symbol of faith--a creed.

This didn't, however, quite settle everything. Not long afterward the Arians convinced Constantine that Arius was not really in disagreement with the council, and as such Nicene-confessing clergy such as Athanasius, the successor of Bishop of Alexander in Egypt, was forceably removed from his pastoral post and an Arian was put in his stead. On Constantine's death bed he finally agreed to be baptized, and the one who baptized him was one of his closest confidants and friends, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian himself and a good friend of Arius. After Constantine's death his sons squabbled for power in the emperor, and they were not only political rivals but also religious rivals, being divided over the Nicene faith and the Arian faith. Through most of the rest of the century the battle of words between Nicene-confessors and Arians raged, roughly until the last of Constantine's descendents, Julian, who had been raised an Arian in the imperial court rejected Christianity completely and sought a return to the old ways of Roman paganism. With Julian's death, a new Christian emperor, Jovian was crowned.

By the end of the 4th century Arianism was mostly on the decline in the Roman empire, but was well received outside of the empire by the Goths, especially the Visigoths who would eventually settle into the Iberian peninsula and Gaul (modern Spain, Portugal, and southern France) where Arianism was the state religion among them for several centuries. Another controversy erupted, this time over the Holy Spirit, the Macedonian heresy while accepting the eternal deity of the Son rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit, they were thus also called Semi-Arians. A new council was held in Constantinople, where the Nicene Creed was not just repeated, but amended, the result being the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed. Which added to the Nicene confession the article on the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is "Lord and Giver of Life, who is worshiped with the Father and the Son".

This has remained the most central symbol and confession of faith in Christianity ever since.

The Apostles' Creed is a uniquely Western confession of faith, in its present form it appeared around the 8th century; however it is almost identical to the much older Old Roman Symbol which existed in the 3rd century, an example of other similar creeds from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as St. Irenaeus' Confession of Faith, and St. Hippolytus' Baptismal Creed. The Nicene Creed itself largely follows the form and structure of these early confessions of the Church. So the Apostles' Creed is, a late medieval iteration of some of the most ancient confessional forms of the Christian Church. If one compares the Confession of Faith by Ireneaus and the Baptismal Creed of St. Hippolytus, with the Old Roman Symbol one sees very clearly the seeds which eventually grew into the Nicene Creed and later the Apostles' Creed.

The Apostles' Creed, as noted, is uniquely Western. It is not in use among the Eastern churches which only use the un-altered Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed of 381 (in the West we almost always use the altered Creed that includes the Filoque).

Both, along with the Athanasian Creed, are the three Historic Creeds of Western Christianity, in use among both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Architeuthus]

I am thinking of these creeds, you said apostle and nicea..what is the difference?

The Nicene Creed is the one from the Council of Nicaea (plus some bits added later), and is also the one in the Christian Forums rules (which presumably you've read and accepted, because you've got a "Nicene Christian" faith marker). The Apostles' Creed is shorter:

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body:
And the life everlasting. Amen

I know they not in the bible but they are biblically based.

Yes, indeed. The version of the Creed in the Christian Forums rules has Bible verses for each line.

 

[Goodbook]

aggh I don't need all that history just the differences between the two. Like post what one is and then post the other and then we can compare them.

 

[Goodbook]

Thank you.
now the the other one?

I guess being non-catholic would dispute that because...I don't believe in the roman catholic church. Sneaky how they stuck that in. Seeing as, the word catholic is not in scriptures.

 

[Goodbook]

Everything else is fine though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you.
now the the other one?

I guess being non-catholic would dispute that because...I don't believe in the roman catholic church. Sneaky how they stuck that in. Seeing as, the word catholic is not in scriptures.

"Catholic" in the Creeds is not "Roman Catholic". Both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians confess the Nicene Creed as it speaks of our belief in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Here "catholic" is meant in its standard sense: it means "universal" from the Greek kathalikos, "according to the whole". In other words it is a confession of faith in the one whole Christian Church.

While the Church is never described as "catholic" in Scripture, Scripture is certainly clear that it is. St. Paul often speaks of the unity of the entire Church of God, that all of us, though separated by distance, are together in the fellowship of God in Jesus Christ. Indeed, the Apostle says in Ephesians that there is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, etc. We are one by the Spirit, we are one in the Lord Jesus Christ, one holy catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Architeuthus]

This is the Nicene Creed from the forum rules:

The Nicene Creed(with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

Here is the Apostles' Creed again:

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body:
And the life everlasting. Amen

 

[PaladinValer]

the dead in Christ rise first right? Then Jesus gathers all believers, and any still living at the time of his coming. Then we will be with him at his millenium Kingdom, which he is bringing to earth (as it is in heaven) and then at the end of thousand years, those outside, the wicked be burned up in hell. THEN the new earth and new heaven will be complete and perfect

No.

1. The Parousia, or the Second Advent of Christ (His Second Coming) occurs: Jesus comes again, with all the previously resurrected, and ushers in the reunification of Heaven and Earth
   
2. The souls of all the departed are loosed from the immediate afterlife and rejoin their bodies, reconstituted, made whole, transfigured, and perfected: this is the Resurrection of the Dead
3. Christ declares Judgment on all Creation, material and immaterial (including all angels, demons, and the Devil himself, being immaterial creations)
4. The Creation is made new again; perfected and transfigured, and forever is directly in the Presence of God

So why is it some people believe that upon death, judgement day has already happened and believers already in heaven? I thought their souls were resting in paradise with the Lord before Heaven is opened. They haven't received their glorified bodies yet. I don't see anyone rising to Heaven the way Jesus did.

That's because the idea of zipping right off to heaven or hell is popular theology and contrary to that in the historical record and in Holy Scripture.

Says in the bible that, no man can enter until the 7 plagues are finished.
Its clear in the Bible that those 7 plagues are for the entire earth. Although a remnant will be saved. Most of us will die in the Lord or be killed, as long as we haven't taken the mark of the beast.

Premillennialism of that sort is a modern intention of the 19th century and foreign to historic Christian belief.

Am I misinterpeting scripture or are other people believing or teaching something totally different? Cos it seems like many christians believe in some kind of rapture BEFORE resurrection. As resurrection happens at the twinkling of an eye and every eye is actually going to see Jesus, I just don't understand why others believe something completely different. This is the trouble, you think, as we christians, the bible simple and straightforward, but then you come across some other kind of teaching that is completely opposite yet still claims it is christian and biblical.

There is no such thing as "Rapture" in that way. It too is a modern invention of the same time.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh right?
He was buried and raised right? He did not just die and his spirit went to heaven, his entire soul, body and spirit was raised and transfigured. His body was glorified, was it not? It was still him, he wasn't reincarnated, he still had the marks on his hands and feet. He did not disappear secretly...people saw him!

God the Son came in the flesh (the Incarnation) as Jesus the Christ. He died, was buried, and descended to the dead, and was raised. He was always transfigured, for He is the Theanthropos, the God-Man. He showed Sts. Peter, James the Greater, and John a glimpse of His Divinity on Mt. Tabor. And yes, it is a true resurrection, meaning it was physical, for the physical is real, good, and not lesser than the immaterial. It is the same Jesus; He was not reincarnated but resurrected, as stated in your post.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

hmm ok thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess on forums there's lots of americans by sheer numbers and dispensationalism is a popular doctrine, but, it is quite foreign to me. Yet people firmly believe in it.

I have kinda settled there is a millenium period, but I suppose some ppl may interpret the 1000 years as not literal.
As for futurist, I would say that revelation has lots of symbolism and can apply to every believer not just those living now, but right back to when it was first written down, so...I guess from my personal perspective of not actually seeing any plagues (not that this has not happened in the past) I think of it as future. As is judgment day, and the end of the world (we are not in Heaven now, by any means!)

As for the rest, that's quite clear and I'm glad we agree on those scriptures.

The main ingredient in Dispensational theology is the distinction between the earthly entity known as Israel as compared to the heavenly entity known as the church of God, or the body of Christ. You hinted at it in saying, As in heaven, so on earth.. There's a difference between these things. Jews in the OT were under the dispensation of the LAW of Moses.. and Jesus of Nazareth was unheard of. Christians today are seated n heavenly places in Christ.. and are actually dead with respect to their old life.. and Christ is their life.. as Christ in you is our hope of glory.

Much of Christendom today is Amillennial, meaning that they reject a literal thousand year reign of Christ.. and actually believe that this present evil world is the kingdom of God right now.. hard to believe, but multitudes have been taught this and embrace it as truth. At best it's nonsense, and also why there are multi billion dollar denominations which have billions of dollars in real estate right here on earth.. again, because they actually think that THIS IS the Kingdom of God today.

Without making a distinction between the OLD and the NEW, eschatology isn't going to make much sense.. simply because much of end times involves the nation of Israel coming to repentance and accepting Christ as their King and Saviour. It's all over the OT and is called the Day of the LORD.. and of course we knowing who the LORD is.. the Day of Jesus Christ.

 

[PaladinValer]

Thank you.
now the the other one?

I guess being non-catholic would dispute that because...I don't believe in the roman catholic church. Sneaky how they stuck that in. Seeing as, the word catholic is not in scriptures.

Um, that's not the meaning of the word "catholic" in the Creed. It means "universal". And neither Luther, Hus, Calvin, Zwingli, or Knox had issues; they all affirmed the Creed. It started with the uneducated peasantry, who had no real capability to comprehend what they disagreeing with, that issues with the Creed began. All those who actually had knowledge and education affirmed its theology without issue.

 

[Goodbook]

Ok maybe i have issues with the word catholic. If catholic means holy, then why does it repeat that there? One holy church would be fine for me and everyone else to say.

One holy, holy church doesnt make sense.

I know in book of revelation those surrounding the throne of God say holy, holy, holy (three times) but they just being revereant.

 

[Goodbook]

Some 'dispensationalism' makes sense and then you go on further until it just doesnt. So i dont completely reject it but dont fully embrace it either.

 

[Goodbook]

The mark 16:15 reference says go out into all the world and preach the gospel...doesnt say anything about catholic. To tie that reference in you could use the world evangelical. As im pretty sure christians who are evangelical would agree to that definition, whatever denom they happen to be.

 

[Goodbook]

Even catholics would agree to that. I would hope.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok maybe i have issues with the word catholic. If catholic means holy, then why does it repeat that there? One holy church would be fine for me and everyone else to say.

One holy, holy church doesnt make sense.

I know in book of revelation those surrounding the throne of God say holy, holy, holy (three times) but they just being revereant.

Not holy, it means "whole" or "universal".

One holy universal and apostolic Church. It refers to the Church in its wholeness, and its unity.

There might be the Church that is in Rome, the Church that is in Ephesus, and the Church that is in Antioch; but there is only one Church--the Church catholic. That is its meaning.

Or to borrow from an early Christian writer, St. Vincent of Lerins (5th century):

"For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." - The Commonitory, ch. 2

Thus catholic faith is this: That which has been believed "everywhere, always, and by all".

-CryptoLutheran