Agree. God's Salvation plan starts in earthly Jerusalem (with the Old Covenant fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ's death, resurrection and Ascension)  and ends with heavenly New Jeruslem in eternity.

lula posts:

kfc posts:

Apoc. 2:26-28, "He who conquers and keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over nations, 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father, 28 and I will give him the morning star."

Apoc. 2 is the letter to the Church of Thyatira which is the smallest of the 7 cities.  It's here that Jesus introduces Himself as "the Son of God", the one and only time this phrase appears in the Apocalypse. The reason for this special title at this particular place is due to its connection to Ps. 2:7-9. "The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. 8 Aks of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Him power over the nations. 9 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

With Christ's First Advent, Ps. 2:7-9 has already been fulfilled and is being fulfilled. Well we know that Jesus has been given authority to rule over all the nations of the earth and heaven too. St. Matt. 28:18. "And Jesus said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." So, 40 days after His Resurrection, Jesus ascended into Heaven and rules over His kingdom from the right hand of the Father. Apoc. 12:5, He's ruling now in Heaven with a "rod of iron". St.matt. 28:19 Christ gives His authority to the Apostles and their successors to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. So, Christians (the kingdom of Christ) rule with Him over the nations (Eph. 2:6) and at the end of the world, time and history, will continue to rule with Him in Heaven Apoc. 20:4-6.

Their present obedience on earth will allow the ruling powers in heaven to deal with the deteriorated spiritual condition in Thyratia becasue they have gone on too long and have spread to the nations, that is, to the rest of Asia Minor. Now, what's the message of Apoc. 2: 26-28 for us today? If one can show that he is faithful in small matters of a local church, he will be accounted worthy to rule with Christ over all the nations, from the first century until the end of the world. St.Luke 16:10 sums it up..."He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater. And we see in Apoc. 20:4, faithful Christians will reign with Christ for a "thousand years". They WILL be judging their persecuters both now and in the future Apoc. 6:9-10; 1Co. 6:2-3; St.Matt. 19:28, and Ps. 2:1-5.  

OK, I understand better now ..I was confused with the way you phrased it.

Having said that, let's be more clear . At the beginning of Christ's 3 year public ministry, He didn't want to be known as "King" per se. That's for sure. He kept telling those for whom He performed miracles, etc. not to tell anyone. Jesus fled from those who wanted to make Him king becasue they had an earthbound view of His mission St.John 6: 14-15 when it was spiritual all along.  

Later on before Pilate, Christ explained that His Kingship "is not of this world." Which is true and neither is His Chruch, the Kingdom of Christ .....we are in the world but not of the world. According to St. Augustine, Christ was not King of Israel for exacting trubute or arming a host of men with swords, but Christ was King of Israel to rule souls, to counsel them for eternal life, to bring to the kingdom of heaven those that believe, hope and love. Christ has to reign first and foremost in our soul. 

But, as far as His Kingship, this changed at the end of His ministry. I'm referring to the Messias Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on what we call Palm Sunday. This is when the prophecies of Zacharais 9:9, Is. 40:9 and Ps. 118:26 were fulfilled by Christ.

 The crowd took branches from the palm trees and laid them out for Him to pass over saying, "Hosanna Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel". Ps. 118:26. So, here they were indeed acclaiming Jesus as Messias underlining His royalty. The Messias is the King of Israel par excellence. And Jesus sitting on an ass, "as it is written,

Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold your King is coming, siting on an ass's colt." His disciples didn't understand this at first but did when Jesus was glorified then they remembered that this had been written of Jesus and had been done to Him.

Yes, my point is that Jesus was not doing the euchraist.  He was doing a Sedar because that would be the Jewish thing to do and not some pagan religion concept.  I am not disagree with communion here.  What I am in disagreement is the concept of eucharist which is pagan and comes from Mithras which was largely a Roman religion and what a surprise you follow doctrine that has roots in this pagan practrice.

The text say nothing about the euchraist again you violate the golden rule and interject other man's opinion.  What Jesus said was take this bread for this is my body and take this wine for this is my blood and do this in rememberance of me.  During the Passover Sedar you would act like you were back right before G-D liberated you from Egypt and remember what happened.  G-D always reminded the Israelites of their years in bondage and how they were liberated from those years and Jesus was saying the samething here remember all that and this for I AM THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH shall set you free.

leauki posts:

You've got things backwards here. The identity of the CC is indissolubly linked with a continuous identity of doctrine, worshjip, and discipline. The so-called "Roformation" involved the abolution of essential doctrines, worship, and discipline substituting completely different and humanly invented alternatives.

Christ promised His Chruch would not fail. The Protestant Reformers said it did fail. Instead of protesting merely against the bad lives of some Catholics, and even of some priests, they went too far and protested against the Chruchas such, asserting that Christ had failed to keep His promise concerning it. This was a protest against Christ who had promised to be with His Chruch till the end of the world. Protest as much as you like against individual abuses in the Chruch, but no man has the right to set up his own church.

The Chruch eventually reformed herself of the abuses..that came about at the Council of Trent.

Most Protestants know little about Luther. He was an apostate priest. I have no respect for him at all. All of the Protestant churches that were established exist becasue men frrogated to themselves the right to coin new doctrines and set up churches of their own.

We can know because Abraham found the city of Salem with an already organised religion loyal to G-d. That didn't happen within Abraham's life time (by all accounts he lived for "only" 175 years). It takes many (normal) generations for a city to grow, choose a city god, and create a religion with priesthood around him.

The religion must have spread from there too because Moses found a (Arab) tribe that also worshipped the god of Salem and married the daughter of one of their priests.

Clearly G-d wouldn't leave Abraham and his descendants alone, would He?

Clearly when the (Canaanite) people of Salem already worshipped G-d (and possibly the bedouins south of the city did too) Abraham was still in Assyria (northern Iraq) and hadn't even started his journey to Canaan.

I assume this is why G-d told Abraham to travel that far. That's why the "holy land" was the holy land: it was the place where G-d was already worshipped whereas other lands and cities worshipped other gods.

Yes, that's exactly true about Jewish expectations.

And I said the same a few replies ago about what Jews expected of a Messiah.

That was exactly the situation Jesus was born into.

I can imagine that this is true. The gentiles (Romans and Greeks at the time) certainly wouldn't have followed Simon Bar Kochba.

There was a definite choice between coming as a warrior king and being accepted by the Jews and coming asa , as you call it, "savior" and impress the gentiles.

Perhaps it was a mechanism to save the gentiles by removing the opportunity of a Jewish victory (under the real Messiah's rule) which would have condemned all of Israel's enemies (then most everyone) to a bad place. This way the gentiles can find G-d before the king of Israel sits on his throne. Maybe...

lula posts:

kfc posts 319

Jesus said this at His trial when He was answering Pilate. According to the DR and KJV it reads, "....My kingdom is not of this world..." 

Again, any one can read Scripture but most often they don't understand it's correct meaning...and that's what is soooo important. Remember in Acts. the Ethiopian who was reading Isaias and didn't understand it? He needed help from a man of the Chruch....St. Philip the deacon in the Church interpreted it for him and afterwards preached Christ and then baptized the Ethiopian.

My concordance contains so many references to "the kingdom of Heaven" or "the Kingdom of God" which is the same thing.

In the OT, the Kingdom of God is the Jewish people. They were His people and He was their King for whom the earthly king was but a vicegerent. It also means the governance of Israel by God. later, taught by the prophets the Jews began to look forward to a new kingdom to come. Daniel 7:14, 18, 25 and 27 come to mind. This expectancy was at its height at the time of Our Lord's arrival. St.John the Baptist preached that the Kingdom of God is at hand. St.John 3:1-3.  The Kingdom is "at hand"....We know from St.John that means the time has nearly arrived when the Messias will appear and will found His kingdom. This rules out the future 1,000 year Messianic kingdom after Christ's Second Coming.

 In the NT, Our Lord's own teachings are full of references to the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven in St.Matt. in deference to the reluctance of the Jews to pronounce God's name.).

I will give you the phrase has several distinct meanings. The spiritual rule of God, the kingdom of grace, the future eternal kingdom of Heaven, The kingdom of Christ which is the Church, a spiritual not a temperal rule. The kingdom of Heaven proclaimed by Our Lord is not purely a celestial thing in the future. As St.John the Baptist is warning...it was at hand, meaning it began in this world at the Incarnation really. It is here and now, existing as a spiritual power, the ruling of God in the Mystical Body of the Church. It will be perfected and come to its complete fullness at the end of time.

I totally Agree.

Lula, just give examples of the alleged differences or be done with it.

Your semantic games are just annoying.

There are rules/principles are for interpreting or understanding any language.  THESE RULES ARE APPLIED TO THEM.  One of the first and primary one is usually called the 'Golden Rule of Interpretation' is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise.' This rule is recognized by logicians, grammarians and rhetoricians as the true criterion by which one must be governed. When guided by this principle, one cannot go far afield, but if it is ignored, one roams at will and can never know whether he has interpreted the Word of God correctly.  LOGICIANS (maybe you need to interject some of that) grammarians, and rhetoricians ALL USE THIS AS THE MAIN POINT!

Lula, I hope your Mithras worship is going well.  You seem to think that the rcc is some how united?  Within 2 months, I have talked to over a dozen fathers and several bishops who believe in reincarnation.  That number of goes up astronomicallly when you ask about hell and if it exists ( a lot will say no).  Then there is the charsmatic catholics.  I haven't even hit on the issue of homosexuality; homosexuals and being a father, homosexuals marriages.  Yes, yes it so very 'united'.

red meat?  All I have seen is doctrine and conjecture in the discourse on your part.  You should use Scripture and use less MSG (doctrine) because Scripture doesn't need any flavoring.

Speaking of your beloved doctrine. Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill (wait doesn't someone claim that to be a holy place and its no longer mithras who do, hmmmm I wonder who) seized by christians in 376 ad offered a lot of "goodies".  "The Mithraic high priest's title of pater, patrum which became papa, or pope. The Mithraic holy father wore a red cap and garment and a ring and carried a shepherd's staff.  Mithra's biships wore a mithra or miter as their badge of office. Mithraists commemorated the sun-god's ascension by eating a mizd, a sun-shaped bun embossed with sword of Mithra.  The roman catholic church adapted this/continues this with the mizd (Latin missa English mass) wafer to retain its sun-shape although not even Episcopalian counterpart do that. "(Encarta)  As the sun hits this sun shaped wafer Mithra is interjecting himself into the bread and the wine wow, sounds like  the euchraist.  That's where all that non-sense came from.  Again, I hope your mithras worship is going fine and dandy because the living G-D doesn't need any of those additives.

You rather take pagan traditions instead what G-D was doing.  Yeshua (aka Jesus) was doing here was a Passover Sedar.  That 'last supper' was just a portion of it when HE took the 3rd or 4th cup and said those words.  Again Yeshua (Jesus) WAS OBSERVING THE PASSOVER and HE TOLD US TO REMEMBER HIS DEATH WHENEVER WE OBSERVE PASSOVER. Since HE was Jewish HE HAD NO CONCEPT OF THIS PAGAN eucharist (that is what I am discussing here and p.s. with the 'church' positioning of the last supper there is no way Jesus could have spent 3 days in the grave WHICH ACCORDING to Scripture HE DID). It appears that you rather take traditions of men and pagan things. Oh wait, that's because you believe that the 'church' super-seded the old, so Lula you should do yourself a favor if you hadn't already and just tear out that old done away with testament because don't you know that the 'church' has replaced what those old smelly Jews have done.

TPP posts:

kfc posts 344

TPP

KFC posts:

You are not the first and won’t be the last to reject the Holy Eucharist.  Christ knew some did not believe. Remember it’s here in St. John 6:64, that Judas fell away. “After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him.”  6:66. (Interesting 3 numbers huh?).

You don’t believe in the literal Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, but now go even further saying the Eucharist is pagan. With that, you're not kickin for Christ, you're kickin' Christ.

And what you've been saying all along about the Church is wrong, but I know you are only repeating the contradicitons of Protestantism itself of which you have been programmed without let-up.

The Blessed Eucharist is the sacramental presence of Christ Himself in the CC and goes to the heart of Catholicism. As a matter of fact, there is no true Christianity without the Eucharist any more than there is without the Incarnation itself.  

In their eagerness to attack the Church, false charges have been made as the Eucharist is pagan and the Chruch and Catholicism is mixed with paganism....

A couple of points.

You're describing what's known as the pagan religions, particularly the Babylonian cults, that came into the Roman Empire from the East a few centuries before Christ. They all seem to have arisen through personifications of nature particulary birth and death as seen in the cycles of the seasons. Mithraism was widespread during the first centuries of Christianity chiefly amongst the pagan Roman soldiers.  

Since these pagan cults had superficial similiarties to Catholicism thePP implies the false argument of descent. Mithraism had in its rites a symolic banquet of bread and water. But this wasn't sacramental in the Christian sense and had no similiarity with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist any more than any partaking of bread and water under any other conceivable circumstances. THePP assertions are entirely untrue. The early Christian rite was based upon the offering of Melchisedech which was of bread and wine, not bread and water and never, ever did the early Chruch substitute water for wine in this Sacramental rite. They knew quite well that water would be an invalid substance for the purposes of the Eucharist and that the very substances used by Christ Himself had to be used.   

The first Christians were Jews and they would have never accepted pagan rites which they hated and held in the utmost abomination. Christ Himself promised the Eucharist while at the synagogue in Capharnaum and at the Last Supper He instituted the Eucharist. Read St.John 6: 25-70 Christ's discourse on the Bread of Life wher Christ promises to nousish mankind with the Divine soul-saving food of His own Flesh and Blood. He was telling the Jews that "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.....For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

My Lord Jesus repeated it and repeated it laying greater stress on the literal sense. At first the Jews thought he meant it  metaphorically. Then after Jesus summarized, the Jews asked how can this man give us His flesh to eat? This is the point when they took Jesus at His word. They were stupified for they understood Jesus literally and correctly. Verse 60, many of them found it to be a "hard saying" they left.

Jesus asked the Apostles if they would also go. And St.Peter answered, "....you have the words of eternal life and we have believed..."  At that time, they certainly didn't understand exactly what CHrist meant, but they accepted it becasue they believed in Christ and that's what we Catholics do as well.

But how could the faithful partake of His true living Flesh and Blood? Well, search the Scriptures...and you'll learn exactly how Christ intended to give His Flesh and Blood to the faithful to eat and drink...the full explanaton is found in the account of the Last Supper. St>Matt. 26:26-28; St.Mark 14:22-24; St.Luke 22:19-20.

These passages speak of the bread and wine which the OT predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in bread and wine, that He would use those elements. Gen. 14:18 Melchisedech offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine and Ps. 109 predicted that Christ would be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

I agree.  But where we differ is you believe that the beginnings of the RCC and these Jews are one and the same.  They are NOT.  The RCC stole Christianity from these early Christians.  They made it into a big business and shut down all competing business.  It was NEVER meant to be like that.  Christianity is about followers of Christ coming together and worshipping him in unity.  It was never supposed to be this big denomination business that the RCC made it out to be.  Jesus said by their fruits you can know them.  Today the Pope is admitting that the persecution of the RCC is because of their own sins from inside.  This is NOT Christ's church Lula.  You've been duped! 

Paul wrote to the Colossians about this subject saying they needed to go nowhere else.  John in his letters to the 7 churches in Revelation warned the churches not to go into paganism but it says they did.  You can see how the new churches stayed pure for a while and then they let in the false teachings (RCC) when it says: 

 "I know your works and where you dwell even where Satan's seat is (ROME) and you hold fast my name and have not denied my faith even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr who was slain among you where Satan dwells.  But I have a few things against you because you hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.  So you also have them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians which I hate."  Rev 3:13-15

Peter mentions this as well in his letter 2 Peter 2:15-19:

"WHich have forsaken the right way and are gone astray following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor who loved the wages of unrighteousness But was rebuked for his iniquity the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.  These are wells without water clouds that are carried with a tempest to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity they allure though the lusts of the flesh through much wantoness those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty they themselves are the servants of corruption for of whom a man is overcome of the same is he brought in bondage". 

The way of Balaam is the covetousness of one who hires himself to do religious work for personal gain.  We know now that for centuries homosexual priests hid from the world under the umbrella of the RCC.  There they could go about and practice their fornication secretly and no one would know because of the great power over the people they wielded. Now it's all crashing down because now they don't have to hide anymore.  You can be a homosexual in the open today.  No need to become a priest to practice this lifestyle.  That's why there is such a shortage of priests today.

This way is contrasted with the right way. Wells without water is the barrenness of the false teachers mocks the thirsty soul who sincerely wants to learn God's way from them.  The mists like the false teachers seem to promise refreshment but in reality do no good.  I think Peter was talking about the beginnings of the RCC here even though it wasn't to begin for another three centuries.  This was the under current. 

I doesn't say Judas fell away here.  You're "adding" to scripture.  You keep bringing up John Chap 6 but you do not understand it.  You only read it thru the lenses of the RCC.  You completely time and time again dismiss the context of Chapts 4-7 and the fact that Jesus said quite clearly:

"...the words that I speak to you they ARE SPIRIT, and they are life."  6:63

He's coming right out plain as day saying these words are spiritual.  He's saying it's NOT Carnal.  You're taking it as carnal when it was never meant to be.  The soul CANNOT be nourished by material food.  Soul is NOT material.  It's spirit he's talking Lula.  You've got it backwards.   You dance all around that verse omitting every time you bring up the "eucharist." 

What you're doing is teaching paganism.  This is part of the RCC's pagan beliefs mixed in with Christianity. The scriptures are clear that there is to be NO eating of blood but that is exactly what the RCC teaches in their version of the "eucharist."  It's cannibilism.  That's why some fell away.  They thought Christ was talking about eating blood and flesh (like you).  That was abhorrant to a Jew.  Remember who Christ is speaking to.  This is very important.  The Jews wouldn't touch blood.  Even the women going thru their menstral cycles were considered unclean and here you have Jesus saying "eat blood?"  Are you crazy they are thinking and they walked.    

I notice you love to quote the scriptures all around John 6 but keep omitting v63.  You dance around it constantly.  Can't you see this?