what happens when you are dead??

Do souls “arrive” into Heaven?

ApologeticsPhilosophy

Apr 26

10 / 10

Apr 27

5d ago

NJada

This is a question whose answer is probably above my head, but I’ve been wondering about this, and I’m not sure what to search for to find an answer.

So at death the body and soul are separated, and when a soul is judged to go to Heaven, they are there with God awaiting the reunification with their bodies. And so after the general Resurrection, those resurrected to eternal life will sort of simultaneously be in the New Heaven and the New Earth, right?

So my question is: If Heaven is in eternity, outside of the temporal world, apart from space or time, can it be said that a soul arrived there? As in, the soul was not there is Heaven in eternity at one point, and then later on the soul got there? How could that be, if there is no time?

I wouldn’t want to hold anything heretical like the preexistence of souls or radical predestination, but it kind of seems like that would mean that those souls that are “now” in Heaven would have to have always been there, and that whoever of us will be in Heaven are already there in eternity–maybe having something to do with that mysterious “Book of Life”. I assume there is a better answer, but I’m wondering what it is.

Does anyone know how this works out? Or is my question based on any misconceptions?

• created

  6d

• last reply

  5d
• 9
  

  replies

• 121
  

  views

• 5
  

  users

• 1
  

  link

• 4
  
  

Kei

Our stay in Heaven is everlasting in that it never ends once we get there, and we have always lasting life. Not as in we were always there.

Think of the numbers that exist. Start at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… and it can go on forever. However, it starts at 1. As opposed to counting all the negative numbers etc

NJada

That would make sense to me if our afterlife took place only in the temporal world, where we live everlastingly in a temporal sense, beginning at some particular time and going on forever, since we will be in a New Earth as well as a New Heaven.

CCC 997:
In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.

So what about this intermediate period, when the soul is with God in Heaven without a body, until the Resurrection? Is time and space also a part of Heaven?–and if not, then how is a soul said to begin to be there? I would have thought that a creature could only be subject to time and space if they have a corporeal body, which we will have again at the general Resurrection.

Kei

We after death do not have a body, until the Last Judgement, when our bodies and souls are met again.

Sort of like angels, we can be without physical bodies and still be in a place. On whether heaven has space or time, that’s getting into some territory some may want to avoid. We have a very old idea of the Empyrean heaven, etc., but some want to say it is like a state.

In my humble lay opinion, I find it much easier to think of Heaven as a place.

PJM

I tried and failed many time to COPY the OP post.

His topic is interesting; but his positions seem unclear to me.

Here is what happens at death
The human Soul which is exclusively eternal and rational is immediately separated from the body and faces the IMMEDIATE Judgment.

Souls with unremitted; unforgiven {John 20:19-23; 1 Jn 5:16-17} Mortal sin are self-condemned to eternal Hell

Souls with no Mortal sins; but venial sins or the Temporal Punishment ALL sins accrue have a DEBT to be repaid before they can access heaven as only PERFECT Souls are admitted; so these Souls go to Purgatory to repay this debt; BUT are assured of eventually attaining Heaven

Souls that are literally “perfect” upon death ascend directly into the Beatific Vision.

Souls DUE heaven have been there sense there death and after the Resurrection for eternity to come

I hope this clarifies the issue

Easter Peace,
Patrick

Hereiam

Depends if you beleve Heaven is a physical place…my own thoughts are that its a state, where the beatific vision is realized, and not a place…i see the New Jerusalem and the mansion with many rooms, and other biblical descriptions as metaphors for this stste, because they are frames of reference that we can wrap our heads around.

1 Reply

NJada

Yes, but I’m still not clear whether or not there can be change in Heaven.

I tend to think (though I’m happy to be corrected) that Heaven is neither a physical place nor simply a state of mind–it doesn’t seem like either of those describe it, not that I would know how to describe Heaven haha. Of course I do believe we will live in a place, after the general Resurrection, being both in Heaven and on earth. But if we can be said to be in a “place” in that between stage, I don’t see how that place would be subject to space and time, if it is the very same abode as the angels.

As this priest says in this lecture (the segment beginning at 19:30):
“St. Thomas would say that angels are said to be in a place insofar as their power is being acted upon at a place. . . . ‘Place’ is something that is more proper to the material world.”

Episode 1: The Nature of Angels

Isn’t that why the angels had one chance only to choose either obey and love God or not, to make that one freewill decision?–and now their wills are forever fixated on whichever they chose?–whereas for us, we can change our will, because we have bodies?

One of the things that caused me to bring this up, is because it seems like a reasonable explanation as to why you can’t change your mind after death, why you can’t escape Hell or fall from Heaven: because once you are separated from your body, the will you had at death is the will you have at your judgment. And so a person in a state of mortal sin would not be able to endure His presence, nor desire to repent, but would prefer Hell. And a person in a state of grace, even if they aren’t perfect, will be willing to endure whatever suffering they have to endure in Purgatory to be with God.

Since our resurrected bodies will be incorruptible (as in the Catechism and 1 Cor 15), it would seem that the bodies of the blessed will be able to go about choosing different good things, but would never desire sin; whereas the damned would go about doing all the evils they are fixated on, but never can desire God.

Well, I’m sure I can go this life without knowing the answers, but if an answer comes along, it could be very useful.

NJada

Bump?

Or, perhaps I should ask, if a direct answer to this question would require that many others points be established as prerequisite, what might those prerequisites be, or what good writings would get into this?

Gorgias

Hereiam

Hereiam:

Depends if you beleve Heaven is a physical place…my own thoughts are that its a state, where the beatific vision is realized, and not a place…i see the New Jerusalem and the mansion with many rooms, and other biblical descriptions as metaphors for this stste, because they are frames of reference that we can wrap our heads around.

That seems a workable definition for the state of affairs prior to the eschaton. (There’s still the question of how Mary, assumed body and soul into heaven, fits into that kind of definition, though… right? )

However, at the eschaton, we will receive glorified bodies. And therefore, at that time, heaven will have a physical dimension. Perhaps, then, it means that, at that point and for all of eternity, all of creation will be ‘heaven’! (Of course, then we have to ask “what about hell? ‘Where’ will hell be?”

Hereiam

Gorgias:

However, at the eschaton, we will receive glorified bodies. And therefore, at that time, heaven will have a physical dimension.

Why? Perhaps, because of human understanding we feel the need for a physical dimension. Could there not be dimensions outside our understanding that accommodate both the physical body and the spirit?

I guess we’ll find out on that day!

Pax et bonum!

catholic answers forum

butbob1

How successful were you at discipleship of your family?

A close friend of mine raised catholic. Was not able to deciple her 4 children to be catholic.
How successful were you at family discipleship ?

1 Reply

• created

  4h

• last reply

  2h
• 7
  

  replies

• 72
  

  views

• 8
  

  users

• 4
  

  likes

• 2
  

  links

• 
  
  

Nap66

Not very. I always wanted my ex-husband to become Catholic. I just found out last night that he doesn’t even believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I always thought he did since he was raised Baptist. I guess we should have gotten married in the Catholic Church and I would have found that out alot sooner (unless he would have lied in pre-marriage counseling and many people do).

People just aren’t interested in religion anymore. I don’t know how you get through life without it.

dconklin

I think I am rather successful. However, the odds are in my favor. I am the father of two, husband of one and the Asst DRE at a large parish. My oldest is a Junior in college. She is on the leadership team (Treasurer) of her university’s Newman Catholic Student Center, she coordinates one of the areas of our vacation bible school, serves as a catechist and helps run our preschool’s summer camps. My son is a high school junior. He is not as involved, but one of his best classes was Intro to the Old Testament – in a public high school. My wife was on our parish’s pastoral council and served a year as president.

2

Greenfields

Have you family BB? How successful were you at discipleship of your family may I ask if you do?
For me it’s a long term thing ,time will tell

DeniseNY

butbob1:

How successful were you at discipleship of your family?

A close friend of mine raised catholic. Was not able to deciple her 4 children to be catholic.

How successful were you at family discipleship ?

It’s odd how many times I’ve seen disciple spelled “deciple”

Can you tell if someone is a deciple of Jesus by their behavior? Non-Catholic Religions

Can you tell if someone is a deciple of Jesus by their behavior? And what behavior would you recognize?

How do Protestant denominations justify themselves as the True Church? Apologetics

Well I would suggest reading the applied deciple ship that saint Paul taught in 1cor.2. Or in 1 cor.14:25-26. All of the teachings required the Holy Spirit And signs and wonders following. Mark 16:16-20. Every denomination has a reason why they are … The denomination for you. And sometimes they are right

2 Replies

1

BoomBoomMancini

Almost as though they’re the same person.

1

Hereiam

Sometimes its not meant to be…See Matthew 10 and Luke 12

how successful were you at family discipleship

butbob1

How successful were you at discipleship of your family?

A close friend of mine raised catholic. Was not able to deciple her 4 children to be catholic.
How successful were you at family discipleship ?

1 Reply

• created

  4h

• last reply

  2h
• 7
  

  replies

• 72
  

  views

• 8
  

  users

• 4
  

  likes

• 2
  

  links

• 
  
  

Nap66

Not very. I always wanted my ex-husband to become Catholic. I just found out last night that he doesn’t even believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I always thought he did since he was raised Baptist. I guess we should have gotten married in the Catholic Church and I would have found that out alot sooner (unless he would have lied in pre-marriage counseling and many people do).

People just aren’t interested in religion anymore. I don’t know how you get through life without it.

dconklin

I think I am rather successful. However, the odds are in my favor. I am the father of two, husband of one and the Asst DRE at a large parish. My oldest is a Junior in college. She is on the leadership team (Treasurer) of her university’s Newman Catholic Student Center, she coordinates one of the areas of our vacation bible school, serves as a catechist and helps run our preschool’s summer camps. My son is a high school junior. He is not as involved, but one of his best classes was Intro to the Old Testament – in a public high school. My wife was on our parish’s pastoral council and served a year as president.

2

Greenfields

Have you family BB? How successful were you at discipleship of your family may I ask if you do?
For me it’s a long term thing ,time will tell

DeniseNY

butbob1:

How successful were you at discipleship of your family?

A close friend of mine raised catholic. Was not able to deciple her 4 children to be catholic.

How successful were you at family discipleship ?

It’s odd how many times I’ve seen disciple spelled “deciple”

Can you tell if someone is a deciple of Jesus by their behavior? Non-Catholic Religions

Can you tell if someone is a deciple of Jesus by their behavior? And what behavior would you recognize?

How do Protestant denominations justify themselves as the True Church? Apologetics

Well I would suggest reading the applied deciple ship that saint Paul taught in 1cor.2. Or in 1 cor.14:25-26. All of the teachings required the Holy Spirit And signs and wonders following. Mark 16:16-20. Every denomination has a reason why they are … The denomination for you. And sometimes they are right

2 Replies

1

BoomBoomMancini

Almost as though they’re the same person.

1

Hereiam

Sometimes its not meant to be…See Matthew 10 and Luke 12

working4christtwo– new day — same results

Post navigation

← Previous post

: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation working4christ 2

Published on Aug 28, 2013

Question: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation which is distinguishable as good faith? And can an Evangelical partake of in the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic service if he maintains a personal rejection of Christ’s physical presence in the bread?

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, 12:55 pm

House Harkonnen  New Member   Join Date: September 8, 2013 Posts: 42 Religion: Lutheran (WELS)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  So check out my understanding here: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8] So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority” God Bless you! Patrick Quote: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation.  Quote: There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church. Last edited by House Harkonnen; Yesterday at 1:08 pm.

#32    Yesterday, 1:01 pm

JonNC  Forum Master   Join Date: December 15, 2007 Posts: 14,803 Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  So check out my understanding here: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8] So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority” God Bless you! Patrick Hi Patrick, We, as Lutherans, believe in the real presence, and call it exactly that, the real presence. The descriptive device we use is, indeed, Sacramental Union, but we are not calling it something else. It is the real presence. We call it what Christ Himself called it: His body and His blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins. We also recognize that Peter’s authority and the authority of the apostles is not exclusive to or limited to one apostolic see of St. Peter, be it Rome or Antioch. The Church is not only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though it is a significant and central portion of the Church Militant. Nor is the Church only and exclusively those who are in communion together in what is known as Eastern Orthodoxy, though they are a significant part of it, as well.  We recognize the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered, so certainly it is in the CC, as well as the EO, and clearly others including ourselves. As such, we have the authority of the Apostles as an apostolic Church, which we claim when we confess the ancient creed. Jon __________________ “It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]… Charles Porterfield Krauth

#33    Yesterday, 4:12 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =JonNC;11441721]1) No. While Lutheranism is sola scripturist, I wouldn’t characterize it as a “Bible only belief church”  2) An excerpt from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.  This is most certainly true. Jon Jon MY FRIEND Thanks! But this leads to another question. How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC? Continued Blessings Jon, Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#34    Yesterday, 4:21 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =House Harkonnen;11441742]No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation. OK And THANKS! But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? Quote: I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church. This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#35    Yesterday, 4:25 pm

Novocastrian  New Member   Join Date: September 10, 2013 Posts: 361 Religion: Church of England (Catholic and reformed)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith.

#36    Yesterday, 4:27 pm

aidanbradypop  Regular Member Prayer Warrior   Join Date: January 15, 2013 Posts: 2,157 Religion: Episcopalian (High Church)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by Novocastrian  Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith. __________________ Dustin No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. John 10:18

#37    Yesterday, 4:42 pm

Ragamuffingirl  New Member   Join Date: October 1, 2013 Posts: 22 Religion: RCIA

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion.

#38    Yesterday, 4:46 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =Novocastrian;11442456]Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith. DARN This happens every time I mention One God; One Faith and One Church [Eph. 4:4-8]  I don’t discount the Eastern churches, which fall into two BROAD catagories. Those “In-Communion” with Rome  Those NOT “In-Communion” with Rome The first group is a PART OF the CC The second group used to be, but SADLY, is not at present a part of the CC. They do have the sacraments VALIDLY; but not licitly. As to your desired position: It’s neither biblical, historical or logical. “One” has to mean “One” The Key’s [means all of the] were given by our Perfect God to Peter [singular]. I PRAY for a unification!. God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#39    Yesterday, 4:50 pm

RyanBlack  Regular Member   Join Date: June 18, 2010 Posts: 1,720 Religion: Ruthenian Catholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by Ragamuffingirl  I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion. Do you realize that Eastern Catholics administer communion to infants? Furthermore, it was once the practice of the entire Church.

#40    Yesterday, 4:57 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =Ragamuffingirl;11442525]I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion. Sincere THANKS for posting! The Bible shows FIVE separate Bible authors testimony. Mt. 26:26-28 Mk. 14: 22-24 Lk. 22:19-21 John 6: 40-60 Paul 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29 Plus the evidence that this was known, accepted and practiced in the Early Church. [First termed “Breaking of the Bread”] Then add to this the numerous Eucharistic Miracles & 2,000 years of practice and belief, and I find it difficult [IMO] to not believe it. Check out www,realpresence.org  God CAN DO any Good thing Giving us Himself; the greatest source of GRACE possible when rightly received, seems a natural desire of God who endured His PASSION for us. Catholic Holy Communion is the single greatest possible “Good” from God; besides permitting man’s salvation. I’m curious: Why are you no-longer “Sola scriptura?” God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#41    Yesterday, 5:00 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =RyanBlack;11442545]Do you realize that Eastern Catholics administer communion to infants? Furthermore, it was once the practice of the entire Church. No, I didn’t But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them. God Bless, Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#42    Yesterday, 5:01 pm

RyanBlack  Regular Member   Join Date: June 18, 2010 Posts: 1,720 Religion: Ruthenian Catholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. You mean 1054 AD? That is common misconception. The Assyrian Church of the East left communion around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Oriental Orthodox left communion after the Council of Chalcedon (451). I don’t think the Catholic Church considers the sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be illicit. A very knowledgeable poster here, Br. JR (JReducation), argues that their sacraments are both valid and licit.

#43    Yesterday, 5:02 pm

aidanbradypop  Regular Member Prayer Warrior   Join Date: January 15, 2013 Posts: 2,157 Religion: Episcopalian (High Church)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  No, I didn’t But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them. God Bless, Patrick So why doesn’t the RCC do thiis?  __________________ Dustin No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. John 10:18 Last edited by aidanbradypop; Yesterday at 5:16 pm.

#44    Yesterday, 5:15 pm

JonNC  Forum Master   Join Date: December 15, 2007 Posts: 14,803 Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  Jon MY FRIEND Thanks! But this leads to another question. How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC? Continued Blessings Jon, Patrick Hi Pat, Accepting for the discussion “transubstantiate”, we don’t but the Holy Spirit does. The only way you can assume our sacrament is invalid is to say our priesthood is invalid due to not being in succession. But even in the history of the CC there have been priests who were valid through presbyter ordination. Our orders are valid as are our sacraments.  Jon __________________ “It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]… Charles Porterfield Krauth

#45    Yesterday, 5:32 pm

House Harkonnen  New Member   Join Date: September 8, 2013 Posts: 42 Religion: Lutheran (WELS)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  OK And THANKS! But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. God Bless you! Patrick Quote: But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? The power to confect the Eucharist is Gods power. Not any mans. Ergo, being in succession from anyone isn’t necessary, (although I believe Lutherans have it).  Quote: This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. That’s not true, there were various other Christians sects operating prior to 1054. The Coptics, Ethiopians, Armenian Apostolic, Assyrian Church of the East, etc. Rome was an important See, no doubt, but it wasn’t the end all be all of Christianity.

Shabbat Night Live with Michael Rood – For Here To Eternity Episo

The Wedding Feast at Cana

 

How Long Was Jesus’ Ministry?

May 16, 2010 · Posted in Bible, Emails

 

A friend asked:

Tim, where do you come down on Jesus ministry being only One year in length and not three years ? Is there a source I can read more about it ?

The length of Jesus’ ministry is not a topic most Christians wonder about. They are universally taught that it was 3½ years long.  What they do not realize without personal investigation is that this is only one traditional teaching of several possibilities ranging from 1 – 3 years in length.

I, too, did not realize this for decades as a believer…until meeting Michael Rood. He was teaching a ministry of Jesus of only about a year, or 62 weeks to be exact (70 if you include Jesus’ work up until Pentecost as a glorified man appearing intermittently). This fell in line with what Daniel 9 says about the Messiah being cut off after 62 weeks (Dan 9:26). While the weeks are traditionally interpreted as groups of seven years, not literal weeks of days, in prophecy, there often are dual fulfillments. This allows for both weeks of years and (normal) weeks of days to be intended by the passage. In other words, Jesus died after exactly 62 weeks in ministry as the ministering servant Messiah (from the day John baptized him when he was baptized by the Holy Spirit descending as a dove).

Origins of the 70 Week Ministry

When I asked Michael where he got this theory, he told me about a conference he went to where a couple scholars were teaching it. They claimed that the oldest Greek manuscript fragment for part of the Gospel of John had a different reading than most Bibles follow. I think it was John 6 which in most Bibles has:

John 6:4 (HCSB) Now the Passover, a Jewish festival, was near.

However, in this oldest fragment that the Critical Apparatus of the Nestle Aland had for that chapter, that verse was missing. If the oldest fragment preserved the original, then that verse was not original to John but added later by some scribe.

Michael Rood was intrigued but thought at the time that these scholars were just trying to be controversial to make a name for themselves. Later when he tried to resolve difficulties in The Chronological Gospels (his next book), this bit of trivia came in handy to resolve there being huge gaps in the narrative.

The gaps occurred because certain verses in John inserted extra Passovers without any account of Jesus observing them nor the other of the intervening three annual pilgrimage feasts which the Torah required all males to attend (Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles). If these Passover accounts were accurate, then Jesus would be breaking Torah which he said he came to fulfill and not to destroy. It would also simply be inconsistent with all the other festivals we see recorded that he always attended like the obedient Jew that he was.

Michael found that two of the four Passovers ascribed to Jesus’ 3½ year ministry were not defensible. John 6:4 did not exist and John 5:1 generic festival reference was not Passover as is normally assumed, but another festival. This left two Passovers, the one soon after the start of his ministry in John 2:23 and the one he died on. Thus, rather than a ministry of over three years, Jesus had a ministry of just over one year (62 weeks) just as some Church fathers had already said.

Why Getting Jesus’ Ministry Length Right Matters

Like Michael, I was not looking for an alternative theory for Jesus ministry either when I encountered it. It just fell into my lap and I accepted it as superior to the 3½ year ministry theory on that merit alone. I did not realize then how key it was that I learned this.

Years later in other research I found compelling research for the correct years of Jesus birth and death: Fall 3 BCE and Spring 30 AD, respectively. These years only leave room for a life span of 31 years, not the 33 years that you need to make a 3½ year ministry beginning at age 30 fit. Only a short one year ministry works. If I still believed the 3½ year ministry at the time of the discovery of those two data points, I probably would have rejected one of this as wrong when all along it was the 3½ year ministry that was wrong. (Note: when you find the difference between 3 BCE and 30 AD be sure to subtract 1 for no year zero! And another 1 because Jesus died six months before his birthday that year. If you don’t, you’ll end up with an age at death of 33 or 32 instead of 31.)

This year of 29 AD for the start of Jesus’ ministry was later confirmed when I discovered that Jesus’ ministry must begin in a sabbath year. This is derived from his public reading of Isaiah 61:1-2, a declaration of a sabbath year in Luke 4:18-20 at the start of his ministry. When I researched sabbath year records, I found the best-supported theory had a sabbath year fall from Spring 28 to Spring 29 AD (documented in my book). This sabbath year cycle is the basis for all the many possible years of fulfillment of the 70th week on, since Jesus must return in a sabbath year, the final year of the 70th Week. (In this way, his two comings are parallel. Both come in the sabbath year end of one of the 70 Prophetic Weeks: the 62nd or 69th and the 70th respectively.)

If you want to learn more on Jesus one year ministry, check out Michael Rood’s Jonah Code.

If this article blessed you and you want to bless back you may…  
(Note: I don’t solicit donations, but several people have requested a way to make them.)

16 Comments

More Bible Secrets

What the 46% Who Believe Jesus Will Return in 2011 Don’t Know But Should…

An Ipsos poll in 2006 found that 25% of adults believed it was at least “somewhat likely” that “Jesus Christ will return to Earth” in the coming year. Among white evangelical Christian adults, a whopping 46% believed this. Yet four years later Jesus still has not returned. Want to know why Jesus did not come in 2007, or any year since then and still won’t come in 2011? Read Featured Article

Email To Friend   digg this  reddit this  Furl this | +Spurl this

16 Responses

1. Debbie Says: May 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

   You and Michael should join forces and do speaking engagements together, you are two peas in a pod!

2. Wil Says: May 18th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

   Is it possible Monte Judah and Michael Rood are the 2 Witnesses?

3. Debbie Says: May 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm

   Wil….I do hope you are kidding!

4. Kay Says: June 11th, 2010 at 7:49 pm

   Not only did the year Jesus stood to read Isaiah 61:1-2 have to be a Sabbath year; it had to be a Jubilee Year because He claimed He had come to free the captives, set the prisioners free!

5. Tim McHyde Says: June 11th, 2010 at 8:01 pm

   It could not be both a sabbath year and jubilee. Only one or the other. Debt slaves were released in sabbath years, too. Jubilee year does not fit since the 69th week and 70th week end in sabbath years. Jubilee years can only begin a seven year cycle, not end it.

6. Barry Says: June 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am

   The word for “weeks” starting in Daniel 9:24 means “sevens”;in the context, it obviosly means “seven year periods.70 weeks are determinded upon thy people means 490 years. This 490-year period is divided into three components,49 years,434 years, and 7 years,respectively. The first was to be occupied with the actual completion of the streets and walls of the city in “troublous times,” as described in the books of Nehemiah and Malachi. Perhaps most significantly, the 49-year period did terminate with Malachi’s prophecy, which marked the close of the Old Testament revelation. After the 49-year period was to be another period of 434 years before Messiah would come as Prince of Israel. This period between the two Testaments was marked by the fulfillment of some of Daniel’s other prophecies-the fall of Persia, the rise of Greece, then the great Roman Empire and, in Israel, the conflicts with Egypt and Syria and the wars of the Maccabees. This 62 weeks means 434 years. This was completeded when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a ass. Matthew 21:1-11. This had nothing to do with his ministry. Now after a gap of 2000 years known as the Church age or the dispensation of Grace. There are still 7-years that has to be completed, known as Danials 70th week. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist

7. Duane Says: June 29th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

   My church bible teacher is Pre Wrath and my wife is pre trib. Over the years I have come to know and understand both sides of the coin, Wife sees the importance of the Feasts and bible teacher doesn’t think its such a requierment.Then I present them The Rood Awakening and now they both think I am nuts.

8. Tim McHyde Says: June 29th, 2010 at 8:32 pm

   Yes, that type of hard-hitting Bible research is liable to make Christians who are not ready for it uncomfortable. That’s why in my book I recommend people not share it with family unless they ask for it first (1Pet 3:15)

9. Melissa in Texas Says: August 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

   A lamb of the first year, without spot or blemish! The Old Covenant sacrifices through all those years as a tupos/type. “The Lamb” had to fulfill the tupos/type. I knew God’s planning couldn’t be sloppy!!! I’ve pondered this for a long time, thank you for showing God’s wonderful, matchless Word to be just that. I’m thrilled.

10. Tim McHyde Says: August 14th, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Melissa, He was in his 32nd year when he died, not his 1st or even his 31st . I don’t think his age at death was prophesied in any way.

11. Kepha Says: October 31st, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Interesting topic. If you look at the law the lamb/goat had to be under a year old. So it is possible that Yahshua’s ministry was only a year. After all if he fulfilled the law of the unblemished lamb, and he was most definitely older than a year, it is possible that his ministry was a year. I will have to read Michael’s report, sounds interesting. Some other things to note: in Luke 3:23we find a scripture that translated properly would read: “And Yahshua the same, to be the first, chief, leader, ruler, to begin, to exist, to be present, to take place, as it were, like as, nearly, thirty years, of the space and time which a thing has been done (in this case him being a chief ruler,leader), being (even as was the custom) the son of Yahseph.” Properly translated this scripture would line up with Yahchanan (John) 8:57 “Then said the Jews unto him, You art not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Why didn’t they say you are thirty years old? Is it possible that Yahshua was older than traditional history tells us? That he was nearly 50? It would line up with the Law! Numbers 5:3;4:23,30,35 Something to think about and discuss…

12. Sam Says: October 31st, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Amen, Tim.

    BTW, shouldn’t “This year of 29 AD for the start of Jesus’ ministry” be 28AD instead? Spring 30AD minus 1.5 years brings us back to Fall 28AD.

    In Christ,
    Sam 

13. Tim McHyde Says: October 31st, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Well, 62 weeks is not quite 1.5 years or 18 months. It’s 1.19 years or around a year and 2 months. So it would take you back from Passover (March/April), 30AD to probably January, 29AD, which puts it in the sabbath year of 28/29 AD.

14. sam Says: October 31st, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Thank you, Tim. Yeah, 62 weeks isn’t 1.5 year long. I’ve done a wrong calculation! :p

15. The Gap/Delay in the Seventy Weeks Before the (Entire) 70th Week · Tim McHyde . com Says: December 31st, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    […] idea that Jesus had a 3½ year ministry instead of the 62 week ministry implied by Daniel’s “after 62 weeks he shall be cut off.”  The 62 weeks are a […]

16. Exactly how long was Jesus’ ministry? | ethanponder Says: February 3rd, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    […] figures of the time we are able to pinpoint a fairly precise time to which that might have been. “Years later in other research I found compelling research for the correct years of Jesus birth an… The common thought of a three and a half 

thermotron former employee lier thieves and embezzler thomas bannach, gregory v johnson, thermotron management training

thermotron

 

Speaking of on the road again…….

you’re heading West?

Hopefully some place more reasonable to live than California.

Personally, with the costs and taxes here in Michigan I sure wouldn’t make this my first choice.

There sure were a lot of memories from T-land.

Some good, some not.
Some things that were going on in the field I wish I had been aware of–but, in retrospect at least it was something to learn from.

I try to follow the “if you can’t say something good…” philosophy so I won’t say too much about Thermotron but the last 3 years seem to have made the problems with that management theory finally have a major effect on their business.

It surprises me that it takes so long for results to be seen from both good and bad things.

I would expect quicker results.It seems to work for us to be aware of the competition but not sell against them or even address them too much in our approach, just concentrate on the equipment and what we will do for the customer.

I have come to learn that there are some bad customers, very few actually, but it’s best just to walk away and leave those to someone else.

Of course I think we could use more service people but I can’t argue against the volume numbers I see coming in.

The trend is up but not by leaps and bounds so we’re still in a holding pattern as far as adding people. I certainly think you would be an asset.

We don’t have a wild crew (unless I’m missing something again)

but then how wild can one guy be? As we get older we get wiser.To thine own self be true.

(and to heck with the rest)I

hope the move works out well and keep in touch.Best regards,Tom—–Original Message—–

From: paul saint [mailto:p1saint@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:52 PMTo: tpatterson@espec.comCc:

p1saint@angelfire.comSubject:

as always.. humblet

hanks for letting me vent over these years..

But if i have ever hurt someone it was not intentional,

but interesting hil sysbesma referred to the management style as “petty and vinidictive..

Especally

after o’kefe brought a law suit agains him for a million dallars as recall Hil telling me.

When you leave with out his permission.

Tom banish’s management style as dean tripp

(i believe he is 70 years old this year or 71)

said was”make it hard on him the co workers”

he wanted to build a case against every one..and

Tom bannish was very succussful in that .. without a doubt

who can really fit in there

.gosh i guess i was a square..

ot drinking all that beer at lunch and after work.

That is why tenbrink and dave durham called me squeky..

guess they were wild.. hank william’s songs..”on the road again.. i can’t wait to get on the road again”

john tenbrink singing.. kind of like his brother who died young ” the kurnal ” music man
John tenbrink even gave me a record that his brother produced.

yes john tenbrink was a wild man. He convinced John Sherman to be an adulter and ruin his aarrage just so john tenbrink could have a drinking buddy while he was in wichita kansas at Boeing Co. .
Marty Rich.. got a taste of his style of “leading people astray” When he was working at Espec he convinced marty to cheat on his time card with him and then when behind his back and blamed marty for it.. This is what tom bannach had people do in California to help build a case against them. 

John TenBrink really should have gone to prison for embezzlement when he was at Thermotron and conspiricy with intent to defraud his co-worker.

This appears to be another holland style Holland’ers, church goers particular wird people.. where dishonesty was the policy..

But you Tom Patterson.. always seemed normal..good job…

that’s why u are successful in the sales game..look at these memories..

what a waste of time..

The biggest illusion was

“I thought it was important.. and nothing the work i did there mattered at all. “

Oh i did work at Boeing and Littion as a result of doing a good job BUT

At Thermotron … Dan Okeefe.. really is a basic criminal psycopath..

it was just a monkey job..see i did have a blank on my forhead..

Tom Bannach was right .. he could lie, cheat and slander his co-workers.. and every one would go along with his lies..

Greg V Johnson a Tom Bannach pet was able to rob and steal and embezzle over 50,000 dollars and take home every thing in the office..

and Greg V Johnson and Tom Bannach drummed out and defrauded their co-workers..

Randy Bunn who hired him at Enseco.. Fired him of robbery thief and embezzlement within 3 months of employment..

But Dean Tripp said they (Thermotron) like people like that.. who are dishonest, liars, back stabbers and thieves..

Mary Rich said to me that Thermotron likes it when u tell them that

“U lied for them”

 

Posted by chamberguy at 1:35 PM 

 

 

 

PJM working 4 christ2–The Jonah Code – DISC 3 (9 of 12) michael rood

1. Truth

Nothing else would matter about Catholicism if it weren’t true. But it is our firm belief as Catholics that it is true. And, indeed, I believe that the histori­­cal case for the Catholic Church is virtually irre­futable, as irrefutable as it was to Cardinal Newman. And there is something else. We know that the Church affirms that its members and servants are all subject to original sin. But while men might falter, the teaching of the Church does not. That has been our rock, tested through the tempests of centuries and undiminished through time.

Innumerable secular and other forces are against us. Even within our own midst we have been pain­fully reminded of the work that needs to be done to cleanse and purify our Church. Evil stalks the world. But then, it always has. And the Church has survived, and in the heat of persecution, it has grown in numbers and strength. Let us remember that fact. And let us always keep in mind the immortal words of Auberon Waugh: “There are countless horrible things happening all over the country, and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible.”

Amen to that. Keep the faith, dear readers, and remember that our ultimate destination is heaven.

Share this:

• Press This
• Twitter
• Facebook

Like this:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Post navigation

← If your asked… a possible reply

 

Religious judgement and commentary–with patrick j miron working4christ2

Username or Email

Password

 Remember Me
Lost your password?

You are being asked to login becauseromancatholic4dummies@gmail.com is used by an account you are not logged into now.

By logging in you’ll post the following comment to 10 Really GREAT THINGS about the CC:

 

 

 

 

Religious judgement and commentary–with patrick j miron

The man, made easy philosophy —-

that teaches that

“all that is required for ones “salvation”

is to ask God to

“be my personal Lord and Savior”

may make one all warm and fuzzy inside.

But it will not get one to heaven

. It will not bring of itself salvation.

patrick j miron — commentary

“””Believing that anyone can or will attain participation in Christ Glory without first sharing in Christ Passion and suffering is a naïve, foolish, even nonsensical teachings of mortal men; “””

who themselves claim to know more and or know better that the God Inspired Bible.

[2nnd. Tim 3:16]

Protected

[John 17:15-19]

and Guided Catholic Church.

[John 14:16-17; fulfilled in John 20:21-22] …

warning delusion commentary –

danger will robenson— danger

– comming from patrick j miron

These verses provide direct evidence of Christ teaching and personal commitment to the catholic Church.

One can know this based on the fact that when these words were written;

the only Church and only Christian Faith in the ENTIRE World;

was today’s Catholic Church and our Faith-belief -teachings.

“Take Up your Cross and Follow Me”

Phil.2: 8 “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross

Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

. Luke.9: 23 And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke.14: 7

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

1Pet.5: 1, 9 “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”