Lately I've been feeling like I've been trying to live 2 lives. I feel like I need to give it ALL to God. I'd like to do more! I'd like to do better! How do I do this?

I'd like to expand on my history but I just want to leave it pretty vague right now. If someone were to tell you 'hey, reader, how can I become all in w/ Jesus, but I'm not sure how', what would you tell them?

Dean makes some interesting points in this one...


I think there was some false assumptions about Trump being popular for being right-wing (which is presumably why DeSantis is trying to outflank him on the right), when it's looking more and more like the "draw" was that he was a "middle finger to the establishment".

The examples Dean cites are the fact that Trump sided with Disney over DeSantis (certainly not a right wing viewpoint), Trump also brags about the vaccine (that many on the right don't like) and acts as if he was in the lab making it himself, and even attacks DeSantis for saying "woke" too much and criticized him for being too strict on abortion. Yet, it doesn't seem to have hurt his polling numbers in the republican field.

Clearly they seem to be attracted more to the man and less to the policy. It would seem as if Trump could adopt some more leftist viewpoints if he wanted to, and his die-hard supporters would still love him, and the people on the other side would still hate him.

House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise on Monday blamed President Biden for the brewing fight over the annual Pentagon policy bill, saying he had turned the U.S. military into a proving ground for a left-wing social agenda.

Mr. Scalise said the administration spent billions of taxpayer dollars on green energy policies and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the Pentagon “instead of lethality.”

“House Republicans are bringing forward a plan that shifts $39 billion from inefficient and woke programs, obsolete weapons systems, and unnecessary and harmful Pentagon bureaucracy to essential capabilities we need to defend our nation,” said Mr. Scalise, Louisiana Republican.

In the book of Genesis chapter 4 . God seems to prefer meat over plants . Do you agree ?

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. "

Former U.S. President Donald Trump wins seat on Hubbard Oregon Fire District board​

Following the Oregon Special Election held on Tuesday, May 16, the Statesman Journal reports that five write-in candidates received two votes for Hubbard Fire District Board Director Position No. 3.

Officials rolled a 12-sided die multiple times to determine which of the individuals would take over the position. [Ultimately,] Trump was declared the winner of the tiebreaker.

With a permanent residence at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump hasn’t announced any plans to relocate to Hubbard — or neighboring towns Woodburn or Aurora [which would be required if he were to accept the office.].

[Important Note: This original post that began this thread has certain deficiencies due to the development of my understanding of the subject since it was first written. Rather than edit the original post, I have instead written what I hope is a better, more clear exposition on the topic later in this thread. It can be found here, post #38. While I stand by the overall conclusion & thrust of the original post, the later commentary is fuller, free of the errors here, and also has helpful links to excellent resources I've discovered as I've continued researching the topic. Páx et bonum!].

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Praised be Jesus Christ!

The title is a tad more on-the-nose than I'd prefer, but I do feel that the situation on the Catholic blogosphere & even among well-known Catholic personalities (especially those who describe themselves as traditionalists) requires a certain edge. This is a topic I've wrestled with since Amōris Lætitia came out during my seminary years, and as I've watched large numbers of otherwise well-meaning Catholics (East & West) come to the conclusion that the Pope is a de facto heretic. For those who don't go that far, for whatever reason, there is a resurgence in the idea that a Pope can formally teach heresy (some claim Pope Francis already *has* done so).

Yet, this concept of a heretical Pope has serious theological problems and implications. This, especially, if someone is openly claiming that the Pope either is a formal heretic, or has formally taught heresy. If such a thing is true, then both the Catholic Church & Christianity itself is in a lot of trouble (to understate it enormously!). No...let's go ahead and say it: If a Pope of Old Rome can be a true heretic, then God has been forsworn. If that is so, then He is not God. (Psalm 91:4; Heb. 10:23; etc.). The logic of this is inescapable, as many Catholic theologians have noted for centuries; long before Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I. Even the historical & logical ramifications of such a thing are utterly astounding! Think about it. Why preserve the Church through all the Great Heresies, Worldly Persecutions, and Diabolic Trials just to drop the ball with...Pope Francis?? Wait, what?!?! It is not surprising that many who have accepted the idea of a heretical Pope have either fallen from the Faith, or are otherwise in a state of open "resistance" to the Ecumenical Pontiff – an idea contrary to the Catholic Faith on its very face, as even Pope St. Pius X (among many other saints) taught quite clearly & vehemently.

So what do we do? I'm no fool. As an instituted Reader and a practicing Romano-Byzantine Catholic of 15 years, I know well that the Church is full of rot; sadly, even the Roman Church. And I think most can agree that Pope Francis, for all his numerous excellent qualities, has not the theological acumen nor deft use of language than previous Pontiffs. Yet, that's beside the point. If anything we were "due" for a less than stellar pope in the Church for well over a century, if not far longer.

It's not the point because the Catholic doctrine regarding the Papacy is not dependent on the individual within office, but rather the Word of God. It is He alone who vouchsafes to keep His Promises...not Jorge Bergoglio, nor any other. And, more importantly, this isn't just coming from wild speculation on my part – it's profoundly present in the Apostolic Tradition.

Naturally, these forums are not arenas where I can exposit a 20 page essay on all the many reasons why Papal indefectibility is sentia certa (although it would be quite easy!). Instead, I want to point to the most important and specific documents that have special magisterial weight. Notably among these is Vatican I's teaching in Pāstor Aēternus. Many, both then and now, saw that document as primarily about defining the extraordinary charism of Papal infallibility. As we all know, this is a rare charism that requires extremely specific conditions before the Holy Spirit will grant it. Yet, Pāstor Aēternus is a *vastly* more important text in laying out the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. And, as many have shown since the days when the very text was debated at the Ecumenical Council, it contains a strong & clear teaching that the Holy See is indefectable. More specifically, it teaches that the Pope cannot be a formal heretic, nor can he bind the Church to any heretical teaching. Surprised? Far-fetched? O how Catholic catechesis has fallen...

Let us begin there.

In order to properly understand Vatican I's teaching we must remember the context. For centuries hence, the Church struggled with factions that had differing views of the Pope of Rome. Despite a rather consistent teaching history in favor of what Pāstor Aēternus would decree, there were many who denied perennial doctrine. Some thought the Pope had only limited jurisdiction (e.g., Gallicans), others that he was a sort of oracle (e.g. "Ultramontanes"), that he could indeed be a heretic ("Dollingerites"), and still others. Hence, when Chapter IV of the pre-promulgated text was being discussed, the issue of the Pope's teaching authority & its nature was hotly debated.

A key insight into these debates is the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser. This text, often ignored to great ills, laid out the substance of the debate and provides an essential hermeneutic to these questions. I cannot obviously outline it all here, but it is readily available. Henceforth I will therefore paint in broad strokes:

The concept of a heretical pope as a theological question is not new (hardly!). The rise of Protestantism, especially, made it a topic discussed in the Post-Tridentine era. Most famous among those is probably St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Ironically, those who wish to argue that the Pope can be a heretic attempt to quote him to that effect. But as I will show, they greviously misunderstand him. Nevertheless, let us begin with him.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was generally agreed that a Pope might fall into material heresy in a private capacity; most likely due to ignorance or error. This may have been the case with Honorius I and John XXII (although those cases are not anywhere near as clear as many claim!). Yet, the question as to formal heresy had zero consensus. Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and another theologian of whom we will speak shortly (Suárez), merely *speculated* on this possibility. Yet, both men concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy due to Divine assistance.

Suárez, especially, rejected the idea completely. He taught that even if a Pope, as a private Christian, fell into error out of ignorance, God would Providentially ensure that such a Pope could not harm the Church. Following the Angelic Doctor's line of thought, God would simply not allow such a Pope to impose heresy or even erroneous teaching on the Church universal. As he put it: "The faith of Peter was Catholic and unable to fail; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter. Therefore, the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic faith, from which this See can never defect." The quote is so like unto St. Bellarmine's teaching it is often mistaken as his!

These teachings made their way into the debates regarding Pastor Aeternus. As the Relatio of Gasser states, this debate was to be *settled* with the promulgation of the Ecumenical Council. One of the issues that arose in the debates was a number of theologians who held to a teaching by a certain Albert Pighius, who taught that the Pope as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To some this seemed extreme, especially the more "liberal" bishops of Dollingerite & Gallican tendencies.

Yet, Bishop Gasser leaned into this "fear" and argued brilliantly that Pighius' teaching was *not* only his own. The attempt to make a hard distinction between Pighius and St. Bellarmine was not as easy as the more liberal bishops thought. Why? Because St. Bellarmine was quite aware of Pighius' teaching! On Pighius' teaching, St. Bellarmine – that oft-misquoted "champion" of proponents of Papal heresy – declared:

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." This, ultimately in fact, is *precisely* the conclusion St. Bellarmine himself reached.

Thus, Bishop Gasser demonstrated to all that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter IV (more on that later) was not that of Albert Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of the "Pope is an oracle" schools. No, rather it is one and the same which St. Bellarmine taught as the most certain and assured. That is, the most common and certain opinion. In passing we should reiterate for clarity that the teaching adopted in Chapter IV of Pāstor Aēternus does follow St. Bellarmine on the points that the Doctor of the Church did and did not mean. Namely, that a Roman Pontiff could perhaps hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance or some other means, but that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy, nor bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the Papal Magisterium.

Before going further, let us not forget that this idea that Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy and/or is attempting to bind the Church to heretical teaching (take your pick on which...) in the Magisterium is *precisely* what many giants in the "traditionalist" community (for lack of a better umbrella term!) have and do argue. I need not name names...

Instead, let us come to what may be called the "clincher." Forget not, dear reader, that an Ecumenical Council is the supreme historical act of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. Even if it only deals with ordinary magisterial teaching, it remains far greater than any lesser vehicle of teaching.

The teaching of St. Bellarmine above, according to the Relatio, was *formally dogmatized* at the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in the decree Pāstor Aēternus. Most specifically in Chapter IV. Let us cite the relevant passages as briefly as we may.

To begin, the Chapter notes both Papal infallibility & indefectability are present since ancient times. It quotes the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople professing: "For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true security of the Christian religion." It goes on after a few more examples to state what is the most important definition of Papal indefectability to date:

"6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error. This, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples...

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." [P.A., Ch. IV].

Click to expand...

We should note here that these paragraphs come before the extraordinary, solemn definition of Papal Infallibility with its subsequent conditions. Some have thought these paragraphs are little more than explanatory passages to prepare for the dogmatic definition. Yet, this is most certainly not what the Council Fathers thought! Their including the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (cited above in 6.) is a crucial hermeneutical key. Indeed, the lack of citation of this in the ineptly named, rebellious "Correctio Filialis" a number of years ago speaks volumes!!!

But let us return to the Relatio for our evidence. During one of the debates, the Bishop of Meaux, France, spoke out in favor of dogmatizing St. Bellarmine's Fourth Opinion (the one I discussed above). His call was not received well, it seems, by more liberal bishops (especially the French). Yet, Bishop Gasser defended him and declared:

"This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: 'If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.'"

This is a remarkable point, and it underscores why Papal indefectibility, even if not *extraordinarily* defined as Papal infallibility, is sententia certa – more specifically, "sententia ad fidem pertinēns et theologice certā." In layman's terms: "A teaching pertaining to the Faith that is theologically certain due to its intrinsic connection with the doctrines of Divine Revelation."

These truths may or may not be definitively approved by the Church (yet?), nevertheless they cannot be doubted without injuring the vitals of the Faith and its inner harmony as bequeathed by Christ Himself.

To conclude, am I saying Pope Francis is a best pope ever? Nope! Am I saying everything he says is golden and undying wisdom? Nope. Am I saying that he cannot hold apparently wonky private opinions about things? Not that either. Am I saying I think allPope Francis' lesser prudential decisions, pastoral judgements, or liturgical choices are protected by God? No.

But what I am saying is what St. Bellarmine said and Pastor Aeternus confirmed. To wit, I end with the great Jesuit Doctor of the Church's words himself regaring the first Pope and archetype of all his Successors:

"[St. Peter] could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith." ("De Controversis" Book 4, Ch. III).

And lastly, I must – as an instituted Reader – issue a caveat from the Holy Scriptures of which Holy Mother Church has entrusted to my unprofitable care:

"Vēre peccātum hariolandi est repugnāre, et scelus īdōlolatrīae nōlle acquiēscere..." (I Sm. XV:XXIII N.V.)

"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and disobedience is as iniquity and idolatry..." (1 Sm. 15:23 ESV-CE).

May it not be so for any of us with regard to the current Supreme Pontiff, even in the midst of confusion & anxiety...first and foremost myself!!

Let us pray:


O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen. +

I welcome disagreements and comments, but demand charity from all (myself included).

I've been a christian since I was 7 years old, grew up in a Christian home. God called me to missions when I was 17 and have been involved in both missions and professional film/tv production over the last 33 years.

I've worked on major Hollywood movies and tv shows, and also have been active in Christian film for the last 7 years. I have worked with Answers in Genesis, the International Christian Film Festival, and have many friendships with key people in the world of Christian film.

Last year I returned to Australia to visit family, but God has been calling me back USA side. The call has been clear, yet I'm still not sure where to plug in. My whole life I've had the struggle between putting food on the table and a roof over my head and obeying God.

The last 2 years every job opportunity has been closed. I've just applied for a role at a church back in the last city in the USA I called home, but a week after applying still no response. I keep getting the urge to pack suitcases and prepare to move back USA side, but without an open door to walk through where I'll have income, a roof over my head and transport I feel stuck.

The last few days I've been seeking God, and nothing but crickets. Just complete and utter silence. I'm now at a point that I can't work on non-Christian productions anymore.

I'm on next to no income right now, and moments away from financial disaster.

I feel a bit lost and stuck, God has always provided a way forward but right now I'm in no mans land.

God blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:

From the beginning, Adam and Eve will be fruitful in terms of children.

Genesis 3:

All humans will come from her. Some years later, Cain killed Abel.

Genesis 4:

Genesis 5:

Cain and Abel were born before Year 130. Given that they were fruitful, it was likely that other children were born during this pre-Seth century as well.

After Cain murdered Abel, God declared Cain to be a fugitive. Cain responded in Genesis 4:

Who was Cain worried about?

His close relatives.

Genesis 4:

Cain married one of the females born in the last one hundred years or so. She could be his sister, niece, or grandniece. Cain could not have married any of his cousins because they didn't exist. Cain didn't have any grandparents.

Paul affirmed in Acts 17:

The U.S. district judge who granted an injunction barring several federal agencies from various types of communication with social media companies denied the Justice Department’s motion to put that injunction on hold.

The Washington Times exclusively reported, however, that whistleblowers at the FBI told the House Judiciary Committee that bureau leadership has ignored the judge’s order and has not sent out any guidance or directives to its rank-and-file employees on steps to abide by the court’s injunction.

A peer-reviewed study released Monday by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that women who terminated their first pregnancies saw larger increases in mental health treatment than women whose initial pregnancies ended by giving birth.

Dakotah Wood, 21, has been charged with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, false reports of commission of crimes, and discharging a firearm in public or residential property.

“These types of situations are relatively rare, unfortunate, and unpleasant,” Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis said in the press release. “My administration, however, has a very public reputation of holding my people accountable for their actions. The public can be confident that when an employee does something of this nature, they will forfeit their ability to be associated with the Hernando County Sheriff’s Office.”

"The world just had the hottest week on record, according to preliminary data. It follows the hottest June on record, with unprecedented sea surface temperatures and record low Antarctic sea ice extent.

"The record-breaking temperatures on land and in the ocean have potentially devastating impacts on ecosystems and the environment. They highlight the far-reaching changes taking place in Earth’s system as a result of human-induced climate change."



World Meteorological Organization

A New Castle County, Delaware, grand jury indicted Olivia Winslow and Camryn Amy, both 21, on Tuesday on charges of second-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, endangering the welfare of a child, third-degree assault, attempted third-degree assault, offensive touching, and felony hate crimes, according to Delaware News Journal.
It's about time that at least a few of the hate crimes against those with conservative principles are being charged.

We are witnesses, by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:29-32 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations,
and then the end will come.

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And great grace was upon them all.

1 John 5:9-12 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

2 Peter 1:16-18 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father's honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.


If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe, then a Church alive in the Holy Spirit
should bear witness to that power and presence of the Son of God.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those
who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image,
and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Acts 4:1 Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them,
2 being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

*Permission to post in full*​

If we believe we have to "honor the Sabbath day," why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturday instead of Sunday?​

@The Liturgist

One of the most appealing teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is their insistence that Christians must obey the Ten Commandments . . . all ten of them. They rightly expose the errant thinking among many Protestant Christian sects that claims, “We don’t have to keep the Ten Commandments for salvation anymore.”

Of course, as Jesus reminds us:

And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And [Jesus] said to him . . . “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:16-17).

Click to expand...

Given our agreement on this point, the Seventh-day Adventist commonly asks: “If you believe we have to keep the Fourth (our Third) Commandment, why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturdays instead of Sunday?”

We can draw our first source from the the Catechism, which declares:

Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart (2072).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thus, the Third Commandment is “fundamentally immutable” because it’s one of the Ten Commandments, which Jesus said we must follow to attain everlasting life. However, the Catholic Church teaches the particular day we celebrate in keeping the Third Commandment to be ceremonial, or an accidental component of the law that is changeable. Here’s how the Catechismputs it:

Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath. . . . Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord’s Day. . . . The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship. . . . Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people (2175-76).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Are there biblical data that concur with this teaching of the Church? Absolutely!

St. Paul tells us that the ceremonial aspect of the old law—the Sabbath day itself—is no longer binding for the Christian faithful:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to festival, or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (Col. 2:16-17).

Click to expand...

Clearly, the Sabbath is “a mere shadow”—that is, fleeting by nature. And “shadow” (Greek, skian) is the same word used by the inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews for the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant—also no longer binding on Christians.

For the law, having but a shadow (Greek, skian) of the good things to come, and not the exact image of the objects, is never able by the sacrifices which they offer continually, year after year the same, to perfect those who draw near (10:1).

Click to expand...

Moreover, it is important to note how Paul uses the same division of “festivals” (annual holy days), “new moons” (monthly holy days), and “Sabbaths” (the weekly holy days) that the Old Testament uses in 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12-13, 31:3; and elsewhere, when referencing Jewish holy days. Clearly, along with the yearly and monthly holy days—which no Christian today claims is binding upon believers in Christ—the Sabbath is included in what Paul calls a mere shadow.

When Paul teaches that Christians do not have to keep the Sabbath, he speaks of the holy days that were specific to the Jews. He is not saying—and does not say—that we do not have to keep any holy days at all. In context, Paul is dealing with Judaizers, who were telling Gentile Christians they had to be circumcised and keep the Old Covenant law that had passed away, which would include the Sabbath and other holy days, in order to be saved. Some overlook this fact when they use Paul’s epistle to the Romans against the necessity of keeping the Third Commandment.

As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions. One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables. . . . One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord (14:1-6).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

During the first few decades of Church history, the question of Jewish-Gentile relations with the Church and the law was a hot topic. As long as the Temple was standing, Christians of Jewish descent were free to attend the Temple and keep certain aspects of the Old Law, as long as they did not teach these things to be essential for salvation.

Many will claim the Catholic is in grave error here because Hebrews 4:9 declares: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” And a surface reading here does appear to bind Christians to the seventh day. However, the context within verses 4-8 greatly clarifies things for us:

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this place he said, “They shall never enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So, then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest ceases also from his labors as God did from his.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The context makes clear that the Jewish “seventh day” has been superseded, or, more properly, fulfilled, in “another day,” “a certain day,” that is a new “Sabbath rest for the people of God.” What day is this? In Hebrews, it is not so much a day at all as it is a person: Jesus Christ. In fact, the entire discussion of “the Sabbath rest” disappears into the discussion of our “great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (4:14ff). It is Jesus Christ himself who actualizes the “rest” that was merely foreshadowed by the Sabbath.

“End of discussion,” say our Protestant friends.“There is no longer any such thing as a day that binds Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, not some day we have to go to church.” And they are actually correct, but only partially. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest in the sense that only he can actualize the “rest” the Sabbath symbolized.

In Hebrews 10:1-26, we see movement toward tagging on the Church as fulfillment of all that was merely shadow in the Old Covenant and not just Jesus Christ in the abstract. And this makes sense only when we understand that “the Church” is the body of Christ, or Christ himself extended into the world (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of those realities, it can never . . . make perfect those who draw near.

Click to expand...

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water . . . not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some. . . . For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:1; 19-22, 25-26).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As Christians, we “enter into the sanctuary” through baptism—bodies washed with pure water—and the Eucharist—his flesh—thus enters the necessity of the Church.

So if Christians are bound to keep the third commandment, and it involves “meeting together,” but not on the Sabbath, what day are we commanded to meet?

In Scripture, whenever we see Christians meeting to worship the Lord, receive Communion, take up collections—apart from the synagogue—it is either “daily,” or especially, it’s “on the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). It is true that you often see St. Paul entering into the synagogue on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14-44, 16:13, 18:4). However, in each instance, his purpose was to proclaim the truth about Christ to the Jews. These are not specifically Christian gatherings. But notice what we find in Acts 2:46:

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

Click to expand...

Paul and his companions attended the temple, but “the breaking of bread” occurred in the house “churches” of Christians. “The breaking of bread,” by the way, is a Eucharistic phrase in St. Luke’s writings. For example, when Paul was in Troas in Acts 20:7, we read: “On the first day of the week, when we gathered together to break bread.” Luke 24:30-31 records that Cleopas and an unnamed disciple’s “eyes were opened,” and they recognized Jesus “in the breaking of the bread.” And according to Luke 24:1 and 13, this encounter was also on the first day of the week! Paul never says, “On the Sabbath, when we gathered to break bread.” Instead, the “breaking of bread” in Luke 24 and in Acts 20 occurs on the first day of the week.

It’s important to remember that when we talk about biblical “churches,” we mean the designated homes for “church” gatherings and specifically for “the breaking of bread.”

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church . . . it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God? . . . For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it (1 Cor. 11:18-23).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So those “homes” were actually house “churches” in which “the breaking of bread” happened, and it happened on the first day of the week: Sunday.

See Is the Bible the word of God?

Within 4 centuries, the early church arrived at a consensus:

Today, however, different denominations accept different sets of books in the general NT canon.

howstuffworks:

Personally, I do not dismiss any book but I put my highest weight on the 66 books and less weight on other books.

Wiki:

New Testament Apocrypha:

The books in Apocrypha failed that aim.

Hi all, new person here. I hope I put this topic in right sub-forum.

Anyway: I have couple of questions about "new Earth".

1. Will I be able to make my own country / nation on New Earth?

2. How do we get there? Is our soul just being moved to a body which is already there and we just transcend , or we need to be born again? I kinda don't want to grow up again so ....

3. Who we will be married to on New Earth?

4. I know book of Revelation says: " no more sea . ". But really ? There will be no oceans?

Tnx for your time and answers.

Just wondering ,with all the heat, forest fires and even some areas are prime for fires. Isn't there something in the bible about the earth burning?

From a human perspective, I think he did. Exodus 31:

Did Jesus work on the Sabbath?

Jesus admitted he did, John 5:

There were exceptions. The temple priests also worked, Numbers 28:

Did Jesus advocate for everyone to work on the Sabbath?

No.

Did Jesus break the Sabbath?

Some Jews thought he did:

Did Jesus sin on the Sabbath?

No, Matthew 12:

Did Jesus abolish the Sabbath?

No, Matthew 5:

Did Jesus break the Sabbath?

I don't think the question applies to Jesus. Even if he did, he had not sinned, Matthew 12:

Jesus was above the Sabbath law. He had the authority on earth to command an invalid to pick up his mat and walk (John 5:8) and to allow his disciples to pick heads of grain and eat them on a Sabbath day (Matthew 12:1).

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE MILLIONS TRAPPED IN THESE FALSE RELIGIONS

JUDAISM

Prayercast | Judaism

MORMONISM

Prayercast | Mormonism

OCCULTISM

Prayercast | Occultism

SIKHISM

Prayercast | Sikhism

Luke 9:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:

This guy's heart is divided. He is not competent. Jesus demands the best of our efforts to work for him. We should work for Jesus with our whole hearts.

"On Tuesday they will deliver the last of their findings -- the location of ground-zero for the Anthropocene, the proposed geological epoch borne of humanity's outsized impact on the planet. "

Welcome To The Anthropocene, Earth's New Chapter