www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Left Behind

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I first must apologize for being gone for so long. Real Life got in the way and I am now just getting back to posting on the forum again. For those who do not remember me I used the handle Jeff, but do to my ignorance, I have had to change my user ID to Jeffrey. Please still call me Jeff. I was baptized in the First Christian Church (or something like that) where I was thankful that they at least baptised properly (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Late in life I was Confirmed Roman Catholic, as no eastern churches where near me. I have attended for many years prior to becoming catholic a Melkite church and still feel most home their. I am currently attending a Byzantine Catholic Church of the Ruthanian/Carpathian tradition, due to a lack of Melkite churches in my area.

Now that I got all that out of the way...

I have recently been given a book called Left Behind, from a fellow Roman Catholic. I have gotten half way through the first book and I got to admit it is Excellent (reading). Just today I saw a great show on EWTN with Mother Angelica (boy she is a card...may God continue to Bless her.) where she stated that several of the issues brought up in the book where not in harmony with the Churches teachings. I would love to hear from anyone who has completed either the book or the series and hear their take on it.

I will also be posting a few items as I get more into the book as it relates to Church teaching.

I look forward to the responses.

<b><font color=blue>Brother Jeffrey --

Now THIS is something I can sink my teeth into!! Being a catechumen, I am ususally pretty far out of the loop regarding issues in the Byzantine Church and expect to be that way for quite a while as I learn the Faith.

Regarding the LEFT BEHIND series, which is another one of Tim LaHayes little money making schemes (ever notice how WELL heretical books, tapes, and vids make a buck?), I am first of all appalled that ANY Catholic or Orthodox would do more than spit on a copy (Yeah, I KNOW, over the line, but you just don't know how BAD this eschatology is and all the ramifications of it yet!!).
The person who handed it to you needs to sit down with a priest and get his teachings straight.

The idea behind this is called PREMILLENIALISM and really caught on in the early 1800's. Prior to that, such ideas were not known by the Church or acknowledged by them. You will find this teaching most predominant in Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, which again puzzles me that your "Catholic" friend would have anything to do with this stuff.

The premise is that the kingdom of God is yet to come (as opposed to the proper understanding that it is already here on earth in the form of the Church -- which has been taught from day one of the Apostles), that there remains to happen a mythological "rapture" of the Church, leaving the world to the "antichrist", who will reign for 7 years, 3 /2 years of false peace and 3 1/2 years of tribulation which climaxes in the Battle of Armaggedon and the return of the Lord. That is the basic idea and it is deeply flawed, anti-Biblical, and in opposition to the Church which our Lord established on the earth. Most of these people, in fact, consider the Catholic Faith to be the "one world church of the anti-Christ" and are violently anti-Catholic bigots who cannot be reasoned with.

Let's try to take their little fantasy world apart if we can.

First --

The kingdom is on earth. It always has been and always will be. The kingdom is the authoriative family of God which began with Adam and was organized into an institution which was the nation of Hebrews called "Israel". Israel is the name by which God calls His people (Gal. 6:16). The Hebrew nation is the Israel of the OT, the Church is the Israel of the NT. Let me go to some scriptures to prove my assertion.

<font color=green>Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:</font>

Notice the similar appellations for the people of God? Royal priesthood and holy nation? This is not without distinct purpose, but it is totally missed by the Premillenialists. They simply do not believe that the kingdom is here yet.

Another proof:

<font color=green>Mt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.</font>

If the kingdom is not here now, what was it that Christ promised would be taken from the Jews and given to the Church? Notice in verse 46 that the Pharisees KNEW that this parable was directed against them and wanted to seize Jesus for such an utterance.

Seondly, the muth of the "rapture" --

Premillenialists get this idea from 2 verses in Scripture which are BADLY wrenched out of any sort of contextual meaning. This is their favorite "proof text":

<font color=green>1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.</font>

Can we now do what the Protestants are famous for and use the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures? Lets!

<font color=green>1Co 15:51 � Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.</font>

These passages are talking about the one and same event. Now, in the CONTEXT of 1 Corinthians 15, WHAT is St. Paul describing?

THE RESURRECTION!!

Or more specifically, the FIRST resurrection, since Rev. 20 tells us that there are actually TWO resurrections (bet ya didn't know that either, did ya!!). The first resurrection is the one which took place in AD70 when the Lord returned the first time. It is spiritual in nature and was the event wherein the halls of Paradise, where the righteous were awaiting the finish of Christ's covenantal work, were emptied. The second is the final resurrection, which is spoken of in John 5: 28-29. This is the resurrection of the body and the final day of Christ's work of judgement of all mankind. That judgemental work began with Christ's first return and will culminate and finalize when He returns to end time, judge the world in righteousness, and usher in the eternal state.

Christ came in AD70?

Yes, I believe I can make a case for that. Again, we go to the Scriptures:

<font color=green>Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.</font>

Notice the "time indicators" of His return. He promised that He would return before all those standing there would physically die. And since we have none of those folks who were standing right there listening to Him speak, we must conclude that the first return has already happened.

Another one:

<font color=green>Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.</font>

Another promise. ALL THESE THINGS. What things is Christ talking about? He is talking about all He has just finished discussing, including His return (vs 31). And Matthew 24 is discussing the destruction of the Temple, (vs. 3), which happened in AD70 by the armies of the Roman Titus. The first three verses of Matthew 24 set the time, for they indicate that the destruction of the Temple is the subject matter. Christ's answer to His disciples in vss. 4-34 indicates things that happened in AD70. You can find this fulfillment by reading Josephus' narrative on the Jewish Civil War of AD67-70. The destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the covenantal curses of Deuteronomy 28 and Christ's promised cursings of Matthew 23.

But by far the most terrible part of Premillenialism is what they say about the Catholic Church. To Premils, the Catholic Church is going to be the "one world church of the anti-christ".

BALDERDASH!!!! HOGWASH!!!!

These people need to read those Bibles they bow down before a bit better and without all their presuppositional bigotry. Our Lord promised that the gates of hell WOULD NOT PREVAIL against the Church. Premil theory has the gates of hell winning by deceiving billions of people who are Catholics. Christ promised the Church would be the "pillar and foundation" of truth.

But even worse than that, they insult the very Blood of Christ, for in Hebrews 9 - 10, we see Christ taking His own Blood into the heavenly Temple, "made without hands", which is the true in Heaven, and offering it to the Father.

WHAT was Christ doing?

He was acting as High Priest, and a High Priest did one thing which NO ONE ELSE COULD DO. He offered Yom Kippur for the nation of Israel. That is what Christ was doing, for we see in Hebrews that His work is compared to the earthly high priests who had to offer over and over again each year. Thus we know it was Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is the offering which makes covenant with God for the nation of God's people. That nation is, according to the verses I have shown you already, the CHURCH!!! Therefore, the Church can never fail of God's grace, for the timeless Christ ever stands offering Yom Kippur for the Church that her corporate sins are covered and the covenant made in Christ's own Blood is not severed. To state that the Church, the CATHOLIC Church can become anything else other than God's nation, His people, is to insult the work of Christ as our High Priest and declare His Blood as a total failure in keeping the corporate covenant with God.

THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS INSULT TO CHRIST'S WORK!!!!

It also drives a wedge between men of good faith by creating theological suspicions and keeps many (like myself for 25 sad years) out of the Catholic Church, for who wants to join the anti-christ's "church"?). Quite frankly, it is hard for me to have anything but contempt for those who push this line of reasoning, not only for their dishonest handling of the Word of God, their disrespect for the Church our Lord founded, and their bigotry, but especially for the way they act as if they are really, really intelligent people when most of them don't know Greek, don't do deep studies of the issue, and basically pass on what they learn from others as if it is truth.

The belief that Christ's first return took place in AD70 is called Preterism. Scott Hahn, of Latin fame as an apologeticist, espouses it in a couple of his books, and those books have both nil obstat and impriature. Therefore, this is an acceptable teaching to the Church. Quite frankly, I think it is the only teaching the Church should authorize because if you get deeply into it, it establishes the Church as the kingdom on very firm eschatological and theological grounds.

If you want further study on this issue, I can send you to a couple of Web Sites. Or just type the word PRETERIST into your search engine and you will get there. Just be a bit cautious, since most of what you will read will have distinct Calvinistic and Protestant overtones.

Hope that helps a bit. My advice:

<big><big>THROW THE BOOK AWAY AND GET SOME NICE EARLY FATHERS TO READ!!!</big></big>

Brother Ed the Catechumen

Brother Ed!

First I must say, May the Blessing of our Holy Father be upon you as you take your next steps into the fullness of Christs Church.

I couldn't agree more and simply was interested in others comments, like you where so good to give. It is unfortunate that I began reading the book, however I must say that it did do a couple of things.

1. It did get me to re-evaluate my current state in life with regards to Christs Church.

2. It got me to communicate to God my desires to live a better life.

3. And notice...I just happened to flip to EWTN this AM and God again spoke to me through Mother Angelica saying "BEWARE". Funny how God works in mysterious ways.

I do have a problem as my In-laws who I cherish dearly have read all his books since they came out. They are also Evangalistic Baptists by nature. Please help me pray for them that they may one day see and be part of the True Church of God.

I will post more as I have time, and yes I would love to have more information for study purposes. BTW - I love reading the early works of the Fathers of our great Church. If you go to www.goarch.com [goarch.com] you can get some great online copies of our Holy Fathers of the Church

<b><font color=blue>Brother Jeffrey -

Four more weeks to go. I have been having quite a case of the "jitters" regarding my upcoming conversion, accompanied by first confession and first communion. Other converts to the Church have told me that this is quite normal and they would have begun to wonder about me if I had not had them. Still.......

You know, you mentioned the book making you re evaluate your life and commitment to Christ. I find that one thing which has narrowed in on my life and how I live it is the idea of the saints, angels, and the Blessed Mother watching my every move. Protestantism considers the "dead" to not be able to either see or intervene in our lives here in this world, as if the Body of Christ is somehow severed into compartments of some sort. Anyhow, it is a sobering thing to me when I am acting sinfully to be aware of this.

I think that our call to theosis should be a motivator also. The way Fr. Szada has presented it in catechumen's class makes it an ideal that we not only all should be pursuing, but that should attract us out of this mundane life and towards a life of greater fullness. Alas, how the lusts of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life short circuit us in our attempts to be like our Lord. How lamentably easy sin is. How terribly hard holiness is.

Okay, as regarding the Preterist readings, here's a site:
http://members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/pt-00.htm

As I said, be reminded that these are Protestant writings and have a different approach to certain items than Catholics do. There is also a position (quite heretical) on this page which states that since Christ has already come, there is no final bodily resurrection. These folks, led by Walt Hibbard and Ed Stevens, deny the second and bodily resurrection and make fun of those who hold to the creedal positions. Of course, in the rebellious autonomy of Protestants, that is de riguer. I wrote a 20+ page rebuke of their errors, making sure to point out repeatedly that the creeds are not the issue -- authority is, and specifically authority to run the Church and define proper doctrine. Christ only gave that to one Body, one Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Once the Protestants left the Church.....well, you can see from looking around you today at the levels of apostasy and insanity infesting their assemblies, what the result of that was.

Brother Ed the Catechumen

[This message has been edited by TruthSeeker (edited 03-22-2001).]

Dear Ed,

The first resurrection is the one which took place in AD70 when the Lord returned the first time. It is spiritual in nature and was the event wherein the halls of Paradise, where the righteous were awaiting the finish of Christ's covenantal work, were emptied. The second is the final resurrection, which is spoken of in John 5: 28-29. This is the resurrection of the body and the final day of Christ's work of judgement of all mankind. That judgemental work began with Christ's first return and will culminate and finalize when He returns to end time, judge the world in righteousness, and usher in the eternal state.

Christ came in AD70?

Yes, I believe I can make a case for that. Again, we go to the Scriptures:

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Notice the "time indicators" of His return. He promised that He would return before all those standing there would physically die. And since we have none of those folks who were standing right there listening to Him speak, we must conclude that the first return has already happened.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I�ve never had that passage explained to me in any way I remember... until now.

To anyone else out there... does this reading of it square with Tradition?

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Whoa! Hold on, guys! When Mark (and Matthew, Matthew borrowed from Mark as one of his sources) was writting his gospel, the Christians at that time believed that Christ would return before the Apostles died. Well, Christ did not return. When you read Luke and John (which were written later, along with Acts), you can see that the early Christians were struggling with the reality that Christ did not return....all the Apostles were dead. For instance, Luke uses some different material from Mark to illustrate this...remember the parable of the ten virgins, etc. Luke also modifies some of Mark's sayings in order to speak more clearly to his audience.

Serge,

I don't know about the precise way your friend interpreted the passage. Perhaps a serious study of what is meant by the Present Kingdom of God needs to be done. It would hurt to take seriously the eschatology of the New Testament. The point is that unless Christ did return how does one explain His present Kingdom? Moreover, how does on defend the Truth that Christ is here and not simply absent as LeHaye teaches unless we do understand that in some way or other He returned from the ascension? How do we explain the very passage you friend brought up unless we do believe that Christ in some way has already returned?

I have far more questions than answers on this matter. I sure, however, than LeHaye and company's ideas are not true and we must avoid them.

Dan L

Serge said:
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. I�ve never had that passage explained to me in any way I remember... until now.
To anyone else out there... does this reading of it square with Tradition?<

Serge, I don�t know if many of the Fathers held to this position. However, what I DO know is that if you read Josephus� �The Jewish Wars� and then read the Book of Revelation they are earily similar. It seems that Jesus is also, at least implicitly talking about the fall of Jerusalem in Matthew 24.

The only Father I have found that said the Book of Revelation was written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem is Irenaeus. From what I have seen everyone else just quotes him. This is not to say he�s wrong, but one father doesn�t constitute a unanimous witness to tradition.

Veritas et Vita said:
>Whoa! Hold on, guys! When Mark (and Matthew, Matthew borrowed from Mark as one of his sources) was writting his gospel, the Christians at that time believed that Christ would return before the Apostles died. Well, Christ did not return. When you read Luke and John (which were written later, along with Acts), you can see that the early Christians were struggling with the reality that Christ did not return....all the Apostles were dead. For instance, Luke uses some different material from Mark to illustrate this...remember the parable of the ten virgins, etc. Luke also modifies some of Mark's sayings in order to speak more clearly to his audience.<

I have to point out that Markan priority is itself a theory that goes against the traditional teachings of the Church when it comes to the Scriptures. Matthew has always been held to be the earliest Gospel. The whole Markan priority/Q source theory is a hold over (whose time has long since expired in my opinion) from 19th century PROTESTANT scholarship. The fact is that the German Lutherans were looking for a way to de-emphasize the importance of the Matthean passages the Catholic Church was using to defend papal primacy. (As an aside: the real problem about this theory is that it has produced absolutely NO agreement among scholars as to what parts of Scripture are actually �authentic�, nor does it do anything to improve one�s faith in Scripture, the Church, God, etc. and it is a DIRECT path to the so-called Jesus Seminar way of "scholarship", i.e., creating Christ in your own image).

If you remember that the Temple in Jerusalem was considered a model of the created world (again this has been witnessed to by various ancient Jewish authors, including Josephus) then its destruction in AD 70 WAS the end of the world (at least as typology). When is the world destroyed? When Christ comes in judgement. When was the world destroyed? In AD 70 as far as the Jews were concerned. When did Christ come in judgement? Apparently in AD 70 (Josephus relates seeing angels above the Temple and hearing a voice coming from the Holy of Holies saying �We are leaving this place.�).

Please note that this does NOT mean there won�t be a �fulfilled� Second Coming where Christ actually comes back in His glorified body at the end of time.

As for the Apostles thinking the end of the world was about to occur in its fulfillment, this is not necessarily the case. They could have been waiting for the �world� of the Temple to be destroyed. Even if they were waiting for the last judgement this doesn�t mean they were right. They had been wrong about a variety of things before when Jesus was alive and explaining things to them.

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as typology of the last judgement of destruction (and recreation) of the entire created order to be quite harmonious to Church teaching. What is the Book of Revelation? Apocalyptic literature? Sure, but it�s also a book of PROPHECY! Why are prophetic books accepted as authoritative and in the canon? Because they have been FULFILLED! Isaiah had been fulfilled before Christ came, but it hadn�t been TOTALLY fulfilled until He was the Suffering Servant par excellance. Same thing with the Book of Revelation. Fulfilled in AD 70 (and therefore we know it�s a true prophecy) and it will be totally fulfilled when Christ comes again at the end of time.

Dear Friends,

Ignatius raises many good points about the prophecies in the New Testament.

About St Irenaeus being one Father with one view, St John of Damascus, I believe, in his treatise in defence of Icons, when told that St Epiphanius may not have been in favour of them, denied that.

But, John said, even if he did, "just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that Spring is here!"

Ignatius' comment reminded me of that line.

With respect to the Second Coming etc., it is clear that this was an ever present reality for the Early Church.

They may have expressed their belief in the End Days in different ways, but the point is that no Christian faith is complete without a conviction that Christ's coming is imminent.

The Priest's prayer in the Liturgy mentions, very "matter of factly," the "Second Glorious Coming" of Christ.

This is the important message of the Gospel, that we are to watch and pray for we know not when Christ will return. This is also the liturgical theme for the Midnight Hour in the Office or Horologion, for Christ will come "like a thief in the night."

We are all called to wait for Christ.

A Priest once told me that the two Icons on either side of the Royal Doors have this significance.

The Icon on the left represents Christ's First Coming, as a Child in His Mother's arms. The Icon on the right is that of Christ in His Second Coming.

Our lives are lived in between these two Events. This is also why Icon corners are similarly organized.

"Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"

Alex

<b><font color=blue>Ahhhhh, how wonderful it is to get the ole thought juices working!!

Good questions raised here. Perhaps I can shed a bit more light on this issue.

Think covenantally. The Jews did. For them, the covenant of God which God ratified with Abraham, making that physical nation of Hebrews to be the Israel of God, was EVERYTHING in their thinking. Unfortunately, they seemed to forget that according to Deuteronomy 28, the covenant has CONDITIONS (something the "once saved -- always saved" crowd is ignorant of also). They broke the covenant and the covenantal kingdom was taken from them (PLEASE -- go read in studiousness Matthew 21: 33-46).

The King James translation of the text in Matthew 24 is PATHETIC at best and most likely anti-Catholic. The word translated "world" in Matthew 24:3 is "aion" which means "age" -- NOT WORLD!!!

BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Matthew 24 is talking, therefore, about the end of the Jewish covenantal age, not the end of the terene ball we stand upon. But most Premils simply read this and say "SEE??? Jaaaaayzus is comin' and the whole world is going to be burnt up in fire"

No, Jesus came and the "age" OFFICIALLY came to an end with the destruction of the Temple. If you remember, the number 40 is often the time in Scripture for testing. 40 days in the wilderness. 40 years of testing.

And God gave the Jews one last chance, a 40 year period from AD 30 to AD70 in which they might repent and turn to their Messiah. They killed Him and persecuted the Church, thus bringing the final wrath upon themselves.

Now, as regarding the Lord's coming, try to think of yourself Jewishly. The Jews were used to language like this:

<font color=green>Isa 19:1 � The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.</font>

This is called Jewish Apocalytic Language. In the OT, there are numerous refernces to "cloud coming", which is a manner in which God warns of His coming in judgement against wickedness.

Did the Egyptians really SEE God with their physical eyes? No. But they saw the results of His coming when the judgement was done. Same thing with Jerusalem. All who stood and looked upon the ruins of that city, and the destroyed Temple surely KNEW that God had come in judgement, similar to the "cloud coming" language of the OT.

How funny that the same Fundamentalists who deny the literalism of John 6:53 insist that Jesus is going to return seated on a real cloud.

It truly is an ever present reality that Christ is among us. Most assuredly He is present upon every Catholic altar every time the words of consecration are said over the elements. He is really and truly here now, we just cannot see Him in all His glory. If our eyes were to be opened during the Liturgy, we would die for the sheer glory we were to see there, both in the priest who officiates and the One Who is present in the sacrifice.

And yet there remains a consummation of all the ages, the final glorious end of all things at which time, according to Rev. 20, there will be the second and final resurrection, the resurrection of the body and the end judgement.

We say that Christ has come, and He has, and yet we joyously call out, "Come Lord Jesus, come!"

Serge, a bit more information, and I hope you find this as beautiful as I did the first time I understood it.

Until the work of Christ was finished, there was no redemption. The righteous went to Paradise to await Christ's work being completed. The wicked went to Hades, the realm of the dead.

Now, ALL were "dead", not in the sense of being spiritually insensate as the Calvinists erroneously teach, but "dead" in being separated from God. That is what spiritual death is. It is the state we are born into as being intimately and organically united with Adam (Romans 5:12).

Using Scripture to define Scripture (sorry, bad left over Protestant habit of mine), we see that "death" is separation from God in the Parable of the Prodigal (pay attention, you will need this if you ever get into a firefight with a Calvinist!!).

<font color=green>Lu 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.</font>

Notice that the son was called "dead" by the father, but the son was not insensate and room temperature, but separated from the father.

Just as all mankind is by dint of our union with Adam. This is why baptism is so important, for it reunites us with the Father as adopted children.

When the Jewish High Priest made Yom Kippur for the nation of Israel, he offered a corporate covenantal sacrifice for all the people. Only when he came back down the steps of the Temple was the sacrifice KNOWN by the people to be accepted of God.

Look at these parallels:

The high priest (according to the Jewish historian Joesphus) ascended the steps to the Temple and was enveloped in and disappeared into thick clouds of incense which came from pots on either side of the steps.

Christ was enveloped by and disappeared into glory clouds as He ascended into Heaven.

The Jewish High Priest entered the Temple and offered a sacrifice yearly for the sins of the people, making covenant with God for another year.

<font color=green>Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 � The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 � And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.</font>

There it is. Christ ascended in glory clouds into Heaven and made Yom Kippur, fulfilling the OT type, and forever with a one time offering, established the covenant between the "new nation" (1 Peter 2:9) and God forever.

And just like the Jewish High Priest, only when our Great High Priest descended from when He had come, returning to the people He had left, HIS PEOPLE (oh my, I'm getting shivers of joy just writing this!!!!) was the sacrifice DONE.

In other words -- if the Premillenialists are right,

WE ARE STILL IN OUR SINS!!!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

And the result of this? Since the work of restoration was completed with His return, the souls in Paradise could now go home to be with the Father and in His household.

THAT is the first resurrection. It MUST be the first resurrection. Let me show you why.

<font color=green>Re 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.</font>

If there is only one resurrection of the "dead" in which some are judged to Heaven and some to Hell, then Rev. 20 is senseless.

But the resurrectional picture I have painted makes perfect sense with Rev. 20:6, the end of the age, and the establishing of the New Covenant in Christ's Blood. With the heavenly Yom Kippur work of Christ being finished upon His return, the "dead" (separated from God) can go home and be reunited with the Father. And since, according to Rev. 20:6, those who participate in the first resurrection cannot be hurt by the second death, it must be the righteous dead, waiting in Paradise, who are the recipients of Christ's redemptive work. They couldn't leave Paradise until Christ returned from performing Yom Kippur in Heaven, but now they are there, and we, as a result of that finished work, can go right to Heaven (assuming that we are found righteous at the Judgement Seat).

OH, THIS IS GLORIOUS!!!! And the Premils miss it entirely.

The Church has it right that there will be a final glorious bodily resurrection. They have just missed that little passage in Rev. 20:6 which speaks of two resurrections. I don't think this denies our glorious tradition or the statements of the Creed.

Brother Ed the Catechumen

All I know is Paul's letter to Timothy. Don't quote scripture. It's a waste of time.

God bless you all! I have learned so much in this discussion. I spend time on another board where people of all faiths (and no faith!) come to discuss spiritual issue. All too often the "Left Behind" series is brought up and various paranoid theories about the Church being invovled with the AntiChrist. Your words have given me much to think about and a far more satisfying way to answer those who seem to buy into every word printed in those books.

Teri

<b>All I know is Paul's letter to Timothy. Don't quote scripture. It's a waste of time.

<font color=blue>HUH??????

Holy Scripture, which is an important part of Holy Tradition is a "waste of time?"

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, could you please clarify for me exactly what you meant and in what context you make such a statement?

Brother Ed the Catechumen

The "Left Behind" theory is definately not Catholic in nature or doctrine. Infact those who believe in the rapture coming to us in that nature also believe that the Pope and the entire Catholic church are going to Hell.
That is just one of many examples of heretic protestant teachings that creep into our churches due to us being around one another. If I am correct that type of theory isn't even a half of century old and was started by southern fundamentalists. I do not mean to offend my Protestant brethren out there but you know I am sick of those fundies bringing down my Catholic faith with their anti Papal tracts. A great book to get is called "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" The attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians"
by Karl Keating. It is a wonderful book which goes into great detail about such issues and how to defend ourselves from Fundamentalist Christians and their false claims.

I think I'm with Mike on this one. The scriptures of both Old and New Testaments contain thousands of sentences, any one of which can be picked up and used to defend or condemn a particular point of view. What then is the purpose of going at it verse against verse? It seems to me that the bishops of the council which codified the canon of scripture did so with the intention of giving the community the true 'taste' of what the teachings of the Master were (and are). But, as with a physics textbook, one can choose one sentence or another, but this does not contain the whole truth. It is like quoting the psalm about bashing the heads of your enemies' babies upon the rocks and then taking that as license to destroy Hindu infants, or especially Moslem infants, "because the Scripture says so". You have to read all the texts -- the whole thing. And pray about it.

What really yanks my chain is the fact that the Greek speaking church objected strenuously against inclusion of the Apocalypse; it got in anyway since we compromised on the book of Hebrews: the Latin speaking church didn't want that. So, we got both.

Now we find ourselves immersed in millenial controversies and other such nonsense that our venerable and ancient bishops knew would cause problems. Poetic language is emotional, and hardly the stuff of theology.

It is no accident that Revelation is never used in our cycle of Liturgy readings.

Blessings!