Lazarus and the Rich man...

[Garee]

That's not what liturgy means. It literally means "work for the people"

Liturgy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would think that is part of it

The liturgy as work for the people is the public worship of the Church.

 

[Garee]

@Garee -- curious as to what denomination you worship with. What so you mean by the law of the father's
When anyone dies-- the physical body begins to decay even in a casket. But when the rapture takes place the born again person will meet Christ in the air -- a glorified body. When a believer dies , the physical body gets buried but their spiritual part is immediately with Jesus Christ forever.

Your comment about the queen of heaven sounds like the RCC beliefs.

There will be no literal raising of flesh and blood , dead mans bones .That is a idea of those who serve a government of men (what the eyes see) An example the trial of Pope Formosa the Cadaver Trial . (tenth century) Dug up bones from the tomb dressed the bones with Pope vesture and declared guilty .Then the bones get passed around the circuit to be venerated as idol images .

Yes the RCC is carbon copy of the unbelieving Jew both serve a law of men rather than the law of God alone . Different fathers same government of venerable men who Lord it over the faith of the non-vereable pew sitters (abomination of desolation )

Studying the first century the greater reformation (sola scriptura) Again is a carbon copy of the 15th century reformation . The reformation restored the authority of God as it is written in the law and prophets. (sola scriptura)

When two or three, a family, or nation or two three millions gather together under sola scriptura, Christ is there restoring his work in mankind .

 

[Sue D.]

@Rhema -- yes, I did know you were being sarcastic about Santa as was I 'back at ya' --and is your comment regarding the new year being Feb 1 also a form of sarcasm?

Because today is New year's Eve and tomorrow is new years day --1st day of 2022.

 

[B-A-C]

There will be no literal raising of flesh and blood , dead mans bones .

I actually agree with this the way it is written. But that doesn't mean there won't be a resurrection.

John 5:28; "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
John 5:29; and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Acts 24:15; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

1Cor 15:12; Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Cor 15:13; But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
1Cor 15:14; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

With that resurrection, comes a new body. Is it flesh? Does it have bones? I don't know, neither do you. But there will be a new body of some sort.

1Cor 15:42; So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
1Cor 15:43; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Cor 15:44; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Cor 15:45; So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Cor 15:46; However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

 

[B-A-C]

Please show proof of that statement. ( I can prove otherwise.)

Since you are a fan of Wikipedia (I am not )

Book of Revelation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Canonical history
Further information: Development of the New Testament canon

Revelation was among the last books accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and to the present day some churches that derive from the Church of the East reject it.[19][20] Eastern Christians became skeptical of the book as doubts concerning its authorship and unusual style[21] were reinforced by aversion to its acceptance by Montanists and other groups considered to be heretical.[22] This distrust of the Book of Revelation persisted in the East through the 15th century.[23]

Dionysius (AD 248), bishop of Alexandria and disciple of Origen, wrote that the Book of Revelation could have been written by Cerinthus although he himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Church History VII.25).[24]

Eusebius, in his Church History (c. AD 330) mentioned that the Apocalypse of John was accepted as a Canonical book and rejected at the same time:

• 1. ... it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings [Homologoumena].
• 4. Among the rejected [Kirsopp. Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.[25]

The Apocalypse of John is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. The disputation can perhaps be attributed to Origen.[26] Origen seems to have accepted it in his writings.[27]

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 348) does not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33–36).[28]

Athanasius (AD 367) in his Letter 39,[29] Augustine of Hippo (c. AD 397) in his book On Christian Doctrine (Book II, Chapter 8),[30] Tyrannius Rufinus (c. AD 400) in his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed,[31] Pope Innocent I (AD 405) in a letter to the bishop of Toulouse[32] and John of Damascus (about AD 730) in his work An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV:7)[33] listed "the Revelation of John the Evangelist" as a canonical book.

Synods
The Council of Laodicea (AD 363) omits it as a canonical book.[34]

The Decretum Gelasianum, which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, contains a list of books of scripture presented as having been reckoned as canonical by the Council of Rome (AD 382). This list mentions it as a part of the New Testament canon.[35]

The Synod of Hippo (in AD 393),[36] followed by the Council of Carthage (397), the Council of Carthage (419), the Council of Florence (1442)[37] and the Council of Trent (1546)[38] classified it as a canonical book.[39]

The Apostolic Canons, approved by the Eastern Orthodox Council in Trullo in 692, but rejected by Pope Sergius I, omit it.[40]

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Different religious groups include different books in their biblical canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books. The Jewish Tanakh (sometimes called the Hebrew Bible) contains 24 books divided into three parts: the five books of the Torah ("teaching"); the eight books of the Nevi'im ("prophets"); and the eleven books of Ketuvim ("writings"). It is composed mainly in Biblical Hebrew. The Greek Septuagint closely resembles the Hebrew Bible but includes additional texts, is the main textual source for the Christian Greek Old Testament. Christian Bibles range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, the 66 books of the canon of the most Protestant denominations, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon. The first part of Christian Bibles is the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the above 24 books of the Hebrew Bible but divided into 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) books and ordered differently. The second part is the New Testament, containing 27 books; the four canonical gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 21 Epistles or letters and the Book of Revelation. The Catholic Church and Eastern Christian churches hold that certain deuterocanonical books and passages are part of the Old Testament canon. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books.

In a letter (c. 405) to Exsuperius of Toulouse, a Gallic bishop, Pope Innocent I mentioned the sacred books that were already received in the canon.[52] When bishops and Councils spoke on the matter of the Biblican canon, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".[53] Thus from the 4th century there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon as it is today,[54] with the exception of the Book of Revelation. In the 5th century the East too, with a few exceptions, came to accept the Book of Revelation and thus came into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[55]

 

[Sue D.]

There will be no literal raising of flesh and blood , dead mans bones .That is a idea of those who serve a government of men (what the eyes see) An example the trial of Pope Formosa the Cadaver Trial . (tenth century) Dug up bones from the tomb dressed the bones with Pope vesture and declared guilty .Then the bones get passed around the circuit to be venerated as idol images .

Yes the RCC is carbon copy of the unbelieving Jew both serve a law of men rather than the law of God alone . Different fathers same government of venerable men who Lord it over the faith of the non-vereable pew sitters (abomination of desolation )

Studying the first century the greater reformation (sola scriptura) Again is a carbon copy of the 15th century reformation . The reformation restored the authority of God as it is written in the law and prophets. (sola scriptura)

When two or three, a family, or nation or two three millions gather together under sola scriptura, Christ is there restoring his work in mankind .

The passage you're talking about is "where two or to three are gathered together there am I in the midst of them". Simply not sure of where that passage is found.

 

[Garee]

The passage you're talking about is "where two or to three are gathered together there am I in the midst of them". Simply not sure of where that passage is found.

I would offer...

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Two families make one new tribe of many families . Abraham's mother was a Hittite and his father a Amorite one new tribe Hebrew


Where two or three million are gathered together in His name, He is in the midst of them. Sola scriptura the reforming restoring power in any generation .Again when two or three are empowered by one God reformation begins restoring the government of peace (the father and the Son ) The dynamic dual

 

[Rhema]

is your comment regarding the new year being Feb 1 also a form of sarcasm?

No.

How wonderfully insular, though. This is why Systemic Racism accusations against Americans are rampant.

Rhema

as was I 'back at ya'

So you use sarcasm even though you had disparaged sarcasm. Interesting.

 

[Rhema]

Since you are a fan of Wikipedia (I am not )

Then prove your position without the use of Wikipedia, which, if I may remind you, is:

Incorrect, it {{ the book of Revelation }} was accepted by the council of Nicea.

You need to Stop the indiscriminate use of cut and paste. All you did was waste my time, as absolutely nothing in your Wikipedia link to "Canonical History" (of Revelation) states that this book was "accepted by the council of Nicaea." In fact, it states the opposite. Your own source material disproves your position -

Eusebius, in his Church History (c. AD 330) mentioned that the Apocalypse of John was accepted as a Canonical book and rejected at the same time:

Again, prove your position that the council of Nicaea published canons (LINK) that accepted the book of Revelation as Canonical.

Did you even read what you quoted?

"Thus from the 4th century there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon as it is today,[54] with the exception of the Book of Revelation. "

Your own "proof" does not support that "it {{ the book of Revelation }} was accepted by the council of Nicea (sic)."

Rhema

PS: B-A-C, I am rather surprised at just how sloppy your reply was. You typically do better. A letter from 405 AD can hardly be submitted as "proof" about any "acceptance" by a council held in 325 AD. 80 YEARS? .... please.

 

[Sue D.]

@Rhema the fact that the book of Revelation is in the Bible. Proves that it was accepted as part of the Canon. A while back I Googled the criteria for s book being included in the Canon. Nothing whimsical about it.

You made a comment about the new year beginning on January 1st rather than Feb 1st was s symptom of systemic racism? Am I understand your comment correctly?

What do you base your February date on as the beginning of the new year?

 

[Rhema]

@Rhema the fact that the book of Revelation is in the Bible. Proves that it was accepted as part of the Canon.

And what of the two books of Maccabees that are in the 1611 King James Bible? Does that "prove" anything?

Why the Maccabees Aren't in the Bible | My Jewish Learning

Why the Books of Maccabbees are not part of the Hebrew Bible

www.myjewishlearning.com

Nothing whimsical about it.

"Whimsical?" Whoever said "whimsical," ma'am ?? (Seriously, this is why I believe that you and I cannot have a productive discussion.)

Am I understand your comment correctly?

Yes. You show a systemic disdain for (or ignorance of) other cultures, races, and peoples of a Christian faith that is different than yours. I point this out because it affects your critical thinking and you seem to be obliviously unawares. My words are not meant as a condemnation, but to shine a light upon the fact that the way a person thinks affects the outcome of what a person believes.

You say "the fact that the book of Revelation is in the Bible," while I say "the fact that the book of Revelation is NOT in the Bible." The canon you use was brought to you by the Roman Catholic Church. Mine was not.

What do you base your February date on as the beginning of the new year?

Chinese New Year: 2025—Year of the Snake (Lunar New Year)

Celebrate Lunar New Year on Wednesday, January 29th, 2025. Find your zodiac (is it lucky?), and discover the Spring Festival’s food, festivals and traditions.

chinesenewyear.net

As I had stated, insular and oblivious to other cultures, even when there are way more Chinese people on this planet than your kind. Most white people are truly oblivious to their own racism.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

A while back I Googled the criteria for s book being included in the Canon.

I would suggest you consult the world's foremost respected scholar on this matter (rather than "Google").

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

(Just follow the link...)

Rhema

 

[Sue D.]

Rhema. I grew up using the KJ Bible. It does not contain the macabees.

I'm living in the USA. Have always been here. So I follow the American holidays.

We are now in 2022. Watched the ball fall at times square.

Are you by chance Chinese. You said "my kind'. Maybe you're the one who racist towards or against white folk like me.

Just out of curiosity - what brings you to this forum.

Happy 2022.

 

[Garee]

You need to Stop the indiscriminate use of cut and paste. All you did was waste my time, as absolutely nothing in your Wikipedia link to "Canonical History" (of Revelation) states that this book was "accepted by the council of Nicaea." In fact, it states the opposite. Your own source material disproves your position -

The council of Nicaea is not in the place of God. A hierarchy of men that lord it over the non venerable faith or belief

God moves men . His canon is still 66 chapters .

Just what is so speapcail of the bonk of Maccabees

We can understand why a hierarchy of corrupted mankind of would desire it? What do you say ? Why should it be added and violate the warning at the end of cannon ?

 

[Sue D.]

Rhema. Your bio info says you live in Pennsylvania. Are your descendants Chinese?

 

[Rhema]

Rhema. I grew up using the KJ Bible. It does not contain the macabees (sic).

You grew up using a castrated KJ Bible. Here is a link to the real list of books contained in the actual "authorized" 1611 King James Bible:

1611 KJV ORIGINAL BOOK NAMES

1611 KJV Original Book Names from the 1611 King James Bible Online

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

And Yes, it contains the Maccabees.

And here is a link to the entire 1611 KJ Bible as published:

1611 KING JAMES VERSION (1611 BIBLE)

1611 KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible online. The 1611 authorized King James Version by King James Bible Online.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

Technically then, you don't use the KJV Bible, and never did - just an edited, modified and castrated "version." So who cut books out of your Bible?

I'm just surprised that you never knew this.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Maybe you're the one who racist towards or against white folk like me.

How white and American can you be? When shown your systemic racism, you accuse that person of racism.

Sue, I'm more white than you could possibly ever be - my biological father was a Nazi General in the SS and my mother was from Scotland.

People who have learned critical thinking skills know how to adjust for their own personal bias. Do you say "Merry Christmas" to your Jewish friends?

Just out of curiosity - what brings you to this forum.

I didn't know I needed your approval.

Rhema

 

[Sue D.]

Well -- I don't happen to know any Jewish people. Have been Baptist all my life.

You seem to be stuck on Systemic racism for some reason. What makes you any whiter than I am. You shared your background / I'm half swedish and half German. Does the name Eisenhower sound familiar? Or Nelson? They came to this country two generations ago.

The American Indians are the original people in this country. They are not white.

Jesus Christ was a Jew -- definitely not white. He died on the cross and rise again the third day for Everyone.

You seem to like cutting me down for some reason.

You find fault with God's word for no real reason. That's why I wonder why you're here in forum. You have 'attitude' that's not needed.

 

[Sue D.]

Rhema the dueah. And I don't know how to spell it -- but it's the RCC version of the Bible. The apocryphal books were in the middle of their Bible. There were a number of books taken out -- the macabees were of that bunch of books. They were not considered to be of the same quality as the rest of the books that are the 66 books of the Canon. Hebrews was one, but over time people could see the positive difference reading that book had on people's lives.

Technically I grew up using the KJV and used it for many years. Then I found the older NIV to bee easier to read. And then a pastor was telling us about the Nkjv and I've been with that ever since.

Those apocryphal books are available on line to read -- which I choose not to do. Very satisfied with the Nkjv. If you want to consider it to be "castrated". That's your choice.

I just looked it up. It's the 1769 version of the KJV that is used today and had been for many years.

 

[Rhema]

The apocryphal books were in the middle of their Bible.

Here is a picture of the list of books in the original 1611 Authorized King James Bible -

If you want to consider it to be "castrated". That's your choice.

What else would you call it? Books were taken out of your Bible, and you have no idea by whom.

They were not considered to be of the same quality as the rest of the books that are the 66 books of the Canon.

So again, WHO chose your canon?

Rhema

PS: I'm not here for tea and crumpets. God bless.