Single best treatise I have ever read on the book of Revelation: Jesus: Victor Over Religion
I'll have a look when I'm ready for yet another theory on Revelation. Thanks for pointing it out to the forum, as people here do tend to investigate things.
Not according to Revelation...The old view is still ok, actually. Not all things in Revelation have come to pass. A newer view says that nothing in Revelation has come to pass.
This is true, because the Church is for the most part made up of gentiles. The Sabbath was given to Israel and not to the Nations. In the council of Jerusalem, Gentile believers were not given Sabbath keeping as a requirement. As far as meeting on Sunday goes, we know that this began in Acts 20:7 for the breaking of break, just as in the Catholic Church today.There are legitimate issues of contention between MJ and RC. on how people should follow Yeshua. Look in the CCC:
2175 "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 and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
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, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"
What does this have to do with the OP?According to a report in the Tablet, Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, on a recent visit to Jerusalem, stressed “no conversion for the Jews,” saying:
“We Christians must not bear witness in relation to the Jews to a path of salvation which is completely foreign to them, as we do with other religions. This is because the New Testament is built up totally on the basis of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church therefore does not have an organized Jewish mission, as certain Evangelical groups do.”
https://harvestingthefruit.com/koch/
Good deal. Glad you will do that.
No doubt you have heard of these interpretations of Revelation:
This one is the Triumphalist interpretation.
Yep.
It looks a lot like one of the Post-Mil positions, actually. At least so far.
I've read of cases that involve believers not buying into every word that is involved with the official stance their church. Do you think it's possible for a difference in messages to exist between the immediate companions of Yeshua which he prayed for and for those who would later believe on Him through their message? "I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in Me through their message.." (John 17:20)This is true, because the Church is for the most part made up of gentiles. The Sabbath was given to Israel and not to the Nations. In the council of Jerusalem, Gentile believers were not given Sabbath keeping as a requirement. As far as meeting on Sunday goes, we know that this began in Acts 20:7 for the breaking of break, just as in the Catholic Church today.
Now just as the Catholic church does not require the keeping of Sabbath, neither does it prohibit it. I and many other Hebrew Catholics keep Sabbath. If you want to keep Sabbath, more power to you.
I'm not sure which of two meanings you mean. If you mean that the church is not sincere in what it says, I would have to disagree. If there is one thing you can say about the Catholic church, it's that it is very authoritarian. If you mean there are Catholics that don't follow every teaching, this is certainly true. For example, there are plenty of Catholics who use birth control. There are nominal believers in every church.I've read of cases that involve believers not buying into every word that is involved with the official stance their church.
I agree... very authoritarian.... Leading in gathering the religious leaders of the world under the umbrella he created. Ultimately, it will be the world that looks to the papacy for reglious guidance. When that is secure, we will again see the dark ages for those who are not a part of this alamalgamation. http://www.news.va/en/news/religious-leaders-gathered-in-the-Vatican-for-theI'm not sure which of two meanings you mean. If you mean that the church is not sincere in what it says, I would have to disagree. If there is one thing you can say about the Catholic church, it's that it is very authoritarian. If you mean there are Catholics that don't follow every teaching, this is certainly true. For example, there are plenty of Catholics who use birth control. There are nominal believers in every church.
The only religion the Pope is pushing is the gospel of Christianity, and the Church that Jesus Christ founded. Any other ideas about blending with other religions to found some new world religions are just unfounded. Finding a shared cause with other religions, such as the eradication of modern slavery, is NOT the same as forming a one world religion.I agree... very authoritarian.... Leading in gathering the religious leaders of the world under the umbrella he created. Ultimately, it will be the world that looks to the papacy for reglious guidance. When that is secure, we will again see the dark ages for those who are not a part of this alamalgamation. http://www.news.va/en/news/religious-leaders-gathered-in-the-Vatican-for-the
You'll have to be more specific. I don't know what you are referring to, or what is so amazing. (Besides me in generalYou amaze me... knowing the Jewish faith, which Yeshua lived breathed and died for, and the Catholic Church which has none of that.
The way I would explain this is, sincerity does not determine truth. There are a number of people within Christianity who are sincere in their belief that their church has the authority to interpret that original ancient message into meaning that gay marriage is also a Christian practice.I'm not sure which of two meanings you mean. If you mean that the church is not sincere in what it says, I would have to disagree. If there is one thing you can say about the Catholic church, it's that it is very authoritarian. If you mean there are Catholics that don't follow every teaching, this is certainly true. For example, there are plenty of Catholics who use birth control. There are nominal believers in every church.
Oh gosh, where to start?
I don't think "The Lord's Day" has any singular definition in scripture. I think squeezing the NT usage into one single prophetic usage seems a little out of context.
Furthermore, the testimony of the early Christians is in tandem with the traditional understanding, and the idea that it is purely a reference to the prophetic end-times I have yet to see taught by the ancients. Please understand that I put ancient consensus way above modern speculations and assertions. They decided on and gave us the canon after all.
Secondly, the Council of Laodicea is not an ecumenical council. It was only a local council.
In other words, when a part of the church starts to create a new doctrine around what is clearly adiaphora (eg. Rom. 14 type things) then the ancients would often make a halachic ruling that strengthened the opposite position. In this case, clearly some people had begun to teach that the only legal time to worship God was on the Sabbath, thus violating the authority of Christ and the scriptures. The response was rather an example of Newton's law- the action created an equal but opposite reaction- Sabbath keeping was ruled out in protection of the principles outlined in the scriptures eg Rom 14. Both positions equally wrong. However, the canons of Laodicea were never regarded as either universally binding or infallible dogma. Nor can it be proven that they bring in a new theological innovation. Only half-witted modern "scholars" make such absurd and baseless assertions. Those modern spirits have a lot of influence in the Messianic movement, sadly.
Quite true.The way I would explain this is, sincerity does not determine truth. There are a number of people within Christianity who are sincere in their belief that their church has the authority to interpret that original ancient message into meaning that gay marriage is also a Christian practice.
I post all over CF. I post in the theology section, the ethics section, etc. If I want to talk about Catholic stuff, I don't post about it here. I don't see what it has to do with Messianic Judaism. I will post in OBOB, or in one of the other appropriate forums such as Mariology.
Yet when I come in here, there is always a thread or two going about the Catholic church or the pope (and not usually a nice one). Why? Why HERE?
I don't think it's appropriate to the forum. It's not in the rules, and there's nothing I do about it. But I can have my say, and my say is this: I wish you'd take it to the proper forum and leave it out of MJ.
. it's decrees are exalted by the church to this day and you know that.
It is counted among the early Christian writings and carry as much weight as any early Council.
We don't see Romans 14 the same at all.
Absolutely not. The Seven Ecumenical Councils are held in dogmatic regard only on certain matters. Not every canon is considered de fide and the disciplinary canons are pretty much ignored.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?