Saved by grace thru faith alone: What is a work?

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I'll try another way to explain saints, as the Catholic Church believes...all Biblically based of course, we don't just make these things up.

We agree, St Paul's usage teaches that all baptized faithful Christians are saints. This is a very broad term tho, that describes folks that are still alive. They live faithful holy lives. The Greek and Hebrew words for "holy ones" are loosely and sometimes written as "saint", depending on the translation you're reading. Therefore it is a teaching of The Catholic Church that the vocation to become a saint is universal, God speaks to ALL believers: "Be holy, because I am holy". (1Peter 1:14-16)

However the Greek term for saint, or "holy one", appears in other scripture with a much narrower sense, One that does not pertain to the living, no matter how you slice it.

Matthew's gospel speaks of "saints" who rose from the dead after Jesus rose from the dead. (Mt 27:52)

Saint Paul speaks of "holy ones" who come with Jesus from heaven when he returns. (1Thes 3:13)

Saint John uses the exact same term to refer to "holy ones" who are now in heaven praying to God. (Rev5:8 and 8:3)

It is in this narrower sense that the Catholic Church honors certain dead Christians with the formal, honorable title of "Saint".

Because it is confident these departed faithful "holy ones" are in heaven with God, The Church urges Catholics to venerate them, imitate their holiness, and pray for their intercession. (See 2Mc 15:11,12 and 14, Tb 12:12-14, Lk 16:19, Rev6:9-11, 5:6-8, 8:3,4, Jn 21:15-17, and Eph 4:11)

I wish you, your family and friends a very Merry Christmas. Marana tha! Come Lord Jesus!

In veneration and imitation of our Blessed Mother Mary, say YES to God.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

a reply to: Ignatian

I don't think you can prove from scripture anything like the way the RCC uses the term today, where people vote on who is a saint and who isn't. Can't I just use the term as Paul does? What's wrong with that?

originally posted by: Ignatian
Wow, where did that come from? lol. Serious, I'd be curious what your source would be? I'm new here, and don't recognize many names, so i'm not familiar with your bend. I mean no disrespect of your belief, but alot of your stuff is new to me.

Hello friend, I believe it comes from over 100 sources, there are some scholars who have one point of view and they disagree with other scholars, especially if the scholars are religious. And we cannot do without the ancient historians, if it wasn't for the ancient historians we would have no comparison, not to say they are telling the truth. Personally I was practicing some of the distinct rituals of what I will discuss, so it was a personal quest for me to study the Way and Truth of the law in it's most Holy form, to realize that I am on this path.

This information is not here because I have collected it - it was designed by the influencial powers of history that this dawn of the new age will be a second realistic historical look at Christianity. It was planned this way because Christianity was supposed to be the religion of the Age of Pisces, hence 'fishers of men' and why Jesus has the pagan symbol of a fish.

Let's look at what happened around Christianity at it's beginnings. After a couple centuries there was an influx of heresy documents. Why? The answer is because it was tremendously hard for people to leave the pagan roots of their ancestors and accept the ancient Jewish way of thinking. Then we have agnostics. They were the ones that even used heresy to make the truth of Jesus secret. Jesus was in a secret religion of the day, it is referenced to a cult but I call it a brotherhood, as they called it the same. To understand this one must understand the religion, which appears to go right back to Elisha and the prophets, right back to Moses, and right back to Enoch. Different terms for this sect are Nazarene, Essene, Ebionite, Zealot, Osi'm, Jessaean, Pharisee, actually those terms are sects within the larger group of Essene, which means Holy ones, there were the true holy ones of Israel since ancient times. The Sadducees were an elite wealthy group who had control of the temple - but they didn't believe in afterlife, and were against the Essenes in many ways. The Herodians were a group that was not full Jewish in bloodline and they had establish ruling relations with Rome over Judah. The apostle Paul was a Herodian and his cousin was a tyrant King Agrippa shown here on his coin.



If you look on the documentary about the Gospel of Judas, you will be educated on the thoughts of the writers and producers of the show but you will not find many quoting of the scripture, and even the scripture they quote, it is extremely careful not to mention any scripture before of after their quote because they do not want us to know the context of heresy. They do not want us to know what the gospel of Judas really means.

The basic story is about some of the events that happened when Jesus was teaching Judas and the other disciples. The end conclusion is a reference to a pagan god who is created angels to save the world, seemingly taught from Jesus. Meanwhile, there are secret codes within the gospel pointing to Agnostic occult teachings, and there are also blasphemies of deception which go opposite to the truth of Jesus.

Over 5 times in the Gospel of Judas, it is being said that Jesus laughs at his disciples. One time they were all praying and Jesus comes up, just to burst out laughing at them. Below we can see that it is almost like a personal attack against Christ himself.

In a Letter from an **Esseer'' in Jerusalem to his Brethren in Alexandria that has it's own history and was finally published in 1915, it is written of Christ -

It is said that he was never seen to laugh, but he was seen to weep.

Now the bible does have true teachings of Jesus. I believe they are very righteous teachings, to me Jesus would be a Teacher of Righteousness, but it is still not determined if the Dead Sea Scrolls were referencing him. But some of the interesting specific details directly correlate with the Essenes, let me give one example that is less talked about, one of the many that spring up during research.

Around 200 years after the crucifixion of Christ, the five books of Hegesippus are known to us through Eusebius of Caesarea. Valuable information is written of James the Just, brother of Jesus, who was appointed by Christ to be the head of the church after his passing, the apostles complied and made James the head of the church, James continued in Jerusalem until he was killed in 62 AD.

Οινον και σικερα ουκ επιεν, ουδε εμψυχον εφαγε ξυρον επι την κεφαλην αυτου· ουκ ανεβη ελαιον ουκ ηλειψατο, και βαλανειω ουκ εχρησατο.
He drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil

No we cross reference this information all the way to a theologian who lived 200 years after the crucifixion, Hippolytus of Rome in his work Philosophumena.

CHAP. XIV.--THE TENETS OF THE ESSENI.
And they do not use oil, regarding it as a defilement to be anointed.

To understand the Way, is to understand the mindfulness, which is dedicated to the worship of the Creator. They had a separate way into the city because to pass through the gate which had statues of men, was a sin. This selflessness is the same in which brought the law of every Essene - to open their homes to strangers and wash their feet. This is why they called him Son of God and he rebuked them as the Son of Man. Being saved from the flesh and blood of Christ is a false pagan doctrine, and there is historical documentation saying that James, the head of the Christian church since the beginning, did in fact oppose Paul, it is historical fact that the brother of Jesus opposed the teachings of Paul, which are the teachings you go by, deifying Christ as a god. This is why Christ argued with them, saying that They are even gods! He was saying not to worship him which is what people all love to do like pagan stubborn persons who refuse to listen and learn, it is really an insult. So they are hypocrites with grace maybe, but delusional hypocrites with no good works, when the new covenant is all about truth - the exact opposite.

Details such as these that correlate are extremely important to be understood and not overlooked. And the quantity of them is fabulous. There is such a deep deep history to this whole book, to this whole nation, but it was manipulated to be made obscure, for many reasons, therefore much is still not understood, but with intense research for collaborative testimony I believe the truth to be available for discovery, as the information has already brought about so numerous of identifications.

There isn't a vote, friend. After years and years and years of investigation, The Pope makes the final decision, The Vicar of Christ, Successor to Saint Peter. And it always involves a miracle on that person's behalf. A miracle would never occur if that person was not in heaven. It's scriptural, and also logical.

For a mere human to refer to another living human as a "saint" in today's parlance, in my opinion, is theologically incorrect. We are all sinners, and saints don't sin. Period. To declare oneself sinless is a sin against God, the sin of presumption and pride. Pride is the deadliest of all sins.

Peace. JMJ, AMDG
a reply to: NOTurTypical

a reply to: Ignatian

A miracle would never occur if that person was not in heaven. It's scriptural, and also logical.

Satan can also counterfeit miracles. That's scriptural as well, he masquerades as an angel of light, and in Revelation he will convince the world to follow the man of sin by counterfeit miracles.

a reply to: greyer

You are deifying Christ just as he Romans ended up doing. Not surprisingly, you are opposing the teachings of Christ. Usually people oppose the teachings of Christ out of selfishness, but you are doing it out of ignorance.

I don't mind someone calling me ignorant but at least prove your point. What have I said that opposes Christ teachings?

I am not trying to be mean or disrespectful, or break the rules, but you are not the smartest one are you?

Now calling someone you don't know stupid is just silly and childish.

Now it is not your fault that the pitiful scholar frauds are lying to you, I know that.

First of all its great you recognize that much of my information comes from Scholars unfortunately I cannot give the people who make the claims you present as "Scholars" as they lack knowledge of history. You just as someone earlier in this thread are presenting a muslim argument, and have now theological or historical basis for your rejection of Paul's works as Scripture.

That is what Paul taught you, but Paul killed James the brother of Jesus,

Are you sure?

According to Josephus, Ananus became the high priest of Jerusalem after the procurator, Porcius Festus, died. While the new procurator, Albinus, was on the way, Ananus saw the opportunity to get rid of James.

Josephus does not say why Ananus wanted the death of James other than that he "was of an exceeding bold and reckless disposition."

Josephus makes it very simple. Ananus gathered the Sanhedrin, accused James of violating the Law along with some others and had them all stoned. As a consequence, Albinus removed Ananus from his position of high priest upon his arrival.

www.christian-history.org...

Now who is the one showing ignorance?

Christ is not a deity, that is Christ is not a god that you just believe in and pray to and all of a sudden everything is right

Christ claimed to be the Messiah. The Messiah was and is God. The name Emmanuel means 'God with us'. John 1 calls him God. Jesus is almost stoned to death in John 10 for claiming to be the Messiah and notice the jews want to stone him for claiming to be equal with God . I could go on for hours....I am obviously not the one who is to lazy to read and interpret Scripture in the proper manner. I get really fed up with people who come at me with these outrageous claims and absolutely no weight behind them . Look at your response. Tons of speculation zero facts.



P.S.

As for the son of man, you might understand the reason he called himself that if you look at daniel 7

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Very true. That's why I thank the Lord for His gift to me of discernment. It doesn't take too many bites of a fruit to discern from what tree it originates.
a reply to: NOTurTypical

a reply to: NOTurTypical

That's scriptural as well, he masquerades as an angel of light,

That was Paul in 2 Corinthians quoting from an extra-biblical writing on the story of Adam and Eve.
Paul wasn't trying to say that this is what is happening. He was talking about people posing as preachers of the gospel who were really just professional talkers who were not opposed to changing things to be more popular and therefore richer.
He was throwing out a bit from that popular alternative Eden story as an illustration to help people grasp the idea, rather than saying anything about angels literally acting like that as a matter of course.

and in Revelation he will convince the world to follow the man of sin by counterfeit miracles.

The "man of sin" is in 2 Thessalonians, not Revelation.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Paul wasn't trying to say that this is what is happening.

I disagree, Muhammad met him just as described, masquerading as an angel of light in a cave, and that was the birth of Islam.

The "man of sin" is in 2 Thessalonians, not Revelation.

Same man, two different people talking about him. One Paul, and one John.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: greyer

Are you sure?

You are more knowledgeable than I assumed, I apologize for that. I was not under the impression you were correlation evidence from the New Testament with ancient historians.


One thing you may be overlooking is the fact that these Herodians and Sadducees were not righteous in any way, they did not believe in righteousness as a part of their system of religion and law. However they lusted over power and control to the greatest extent. So when they say that James had created disturbances, and even Jesus had created disturbances and actual damages in the Temple that needed to be paid for, they were correct, but they will certainly not mention why James and Jesus came to the point of creating disturbances. To my knowledge it was because these Herodians and priestly lineage were corrupted to the utmost. I know it has been established that Jesus and James might have been murderers, but that is what makes this story so interesting to research. To find if Jesus really was that Nazorean and to surmised what the Nazorean law really was, since they were associated to the ancient most pious Jews of all time.

Herod Antipas, Roman-appointed self-styled "King of the Jews' [Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great) had jurisdiction over Gallilee, but nevertheless belonged to the Herodian dynasty, and like his father and brothers, continually held ambitions for regaining status of "King" over Judea (eventually his nephew Herod Agrippa I would regain that title

This is after the crucifixion. Maybe Paul didn't kill James, but Paul's direct family was deeply involved with the murder of Jesus and the fight for power over Jerusalem, the place James was put to death.

According to Josephus, Ananus became the high priest of Jerusalem after the procurator, Porcius Festus, died. While the new procurator, Albinus, was on the way, Ananus saw the opportunity to get rid of James.

Josephus does not say why Ananus wanted the death of James other than that he "was of an exceeding bold and reckless disposition."

Josephus makes it very simple. Ananus gathered the Sanhedrin, accused James of violating the Law along with some others and had them all stoned. As a consequence, Albinus removed Ananus from his position of high priest upon his arrival.

www.christian-history.org...

Now who is the one showing ignorance?

You are still showing ignorance to the law. Messiah in Jewish law means that he was going to deliver the people of Israel. That is where the whole military aspect of the real history of Jesus comes in, the things they keep out. When that failed, the Romans changed the whole story over and said that Jesus was a sacrifice by God, and with his flesh and blood people will be saved - that is a proven pagan doctrine, and we understand why James was in such opposition against it. It in no way mean Jesus is equal to the Father, that is not what Jesus preached. Jesus preaching being a servant to the Father, and he was a strict example. You people listen to Paul over Jesus, but that is a complete disgrace, it is more than ignorant, it is being totally deceived.

All of my literature comes way way before the gospel of John. It was all corrupted by that time, it was all corrupt by the end of the 2nd century. The gospels are filled with pagan references.

In order to rise above ignorance and understand Truth, you must note that almost everybody is a liar, and nobody can be trusted. The writers of the New Testament were attempting to create a religion, that action does not involve truth. It is a story, and unfortunately that is just it, a story. I was like you, I believed, but that is unfortunate.

I have found from my own investigation, not that of any scholar or researcher, that the ancient historians do give the truth, or more of the truth of history, and the gospels are fiction.

we ask why the early Christians would have changed the chronology of Jesus by about 35 years. The obvious motivation here would have been to avoid the wrath of the Flavian Emperors. No one wanted to look Vespasian in the face and tell him that he killed the "Son of God". Better to blame Pontius Pilate and Tiberius. The chronology change also made it possible to depict "Jesus" as a misunderstood pacifist who sought a "kingdom" only in heaven. Better this than to admit that he was a failed messiah who led his followers into colossal tragedy.

P.S.

As for the son of man, you might understand the reason he called himself that if you look at daniel 7

Well great to know we are both pitiful judgers of each other. I have read the full bible, every page and I am familiar with the fulfillment of the law.

Now the place where the got the notion Jesus was a Nazorean, Essen or Zealot, I think that is where it gets interesting because of the correlations. But it was stated by Josephus that even a governor and a leader of battle could still be an Essen. And the media will tell you before the days of Jesus there was no Zealots, I have proven that wrong also. Basically everything they tell you, is wrong.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I disagree, Muhammad met him just as described, masquerading as an angel of light in a cave, and that was the birth of Islam.

That is just a story and nowhere close to being an actual historical event.

Same man, two different people talking about him. One Paul, and one John.

The "same man" as who?
It mentions a man in 2 Thessalonians, where does it mention a man in Revelation?

a reply to: jmdewey60

The "same man" as who? It mentions a man in 2 Thessalonians, where does it mention a man in Revelation?

There are 33 titles the Bible uses for the antichrist. "Man of sin" being just one of the 33. Same man being talked about in Revelation amongst numerous other book of the Bible. Don't pretend this is the first day you have ever studied Biblical prophecy.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

There are 33 titles the Bible uses for the antichrist.

OK, which one is a man in Revelation?

Don't pretend this is the first day you have ever studied Biblical prophecy.

You are talking about a theory that predicts the future.

a reply to: jmdewey60

OK, which one is a man in Revelation?

"rider on the white horse"
"the beast"
"the vine of the Earth"

All titles for the antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition

a reply to: jmdewey60

That is just a story and nowhere close to being an actual historical event.

I have no reason to believe an "angel of light" didn't meet him in a cave, I just reject it was Gabriel and instead was satan who birthed the religion of the antichrist. He is the father of lies after all. Even when Muhammad first told his wife after the first meeting she told him it was a jinn and not an angel, he should have listened to her wise council.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

"rider on the white horse"
"the beast"
"the vine of the Earth"

All titles for the antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition

None of those are a literal man.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have no reason to believe an "angel of light" didn't meet him in a cave, . . .

What reason do you have to believe that anything like that did happen?

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have no reason to believe an "angel of light" didn't meet him in a cave, . . .

What reason do you have to believe that anything like that did happen?

Well, who else would be the source of the religion of the antichrist? Who is the father of lies? Islam is specifically set up to deny two things, the divinity of Christ and the relationship between the Father and the Son. (God is not begotten and neither does he beget)

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

"rider on the white horse"
"the beast"
"the vine of the Earth"

All titles for the antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition

None of those are a literal man.

Yeah, that's why I said they were "titles" the Bible uses for the antichrist, nobody knows his proper name yet.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, that's why I said they were "titles" the Bible uses for the antichrist, nobody knows his proper name yet.

They are titles of things understood metaphorically.
They are not titles of a man.