2 Peter 3:8: should the verse be taken as "literal" or "metaphoric"?

[Shiranui117]

The understanding of the verses of the Scripture is not dependent on learning. It is dependent on purity of heart and sincerity.
When Jesus came, there were many learned jews who did not recognize Him, but peter who was a simple fisherman did.
Once a man becomes pure and sincere, the Holy spirit reveals the interpretations to him. This is a fundamental teaching of Bible, which I think many have forgot.

The Protestants say the same thing. Look at how that's worked out for them--thousands upon thousands of different Protestant denominations, and there are more shatterings and fragmentations all the time. Sola Scriptura does not work. Anyone can claim to be led by the Spirit, and they may even fool themselves into believing such a thing. But, as I have explained before, the Bible is not a stand-alone book. It is only one small part of a larger Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles. If you remove the Bible from that larger context of Tradition, you cannot hope to correctly interpret it all. Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. But does the Holy Spirit teach two Christians contradictory teachings? Of course not. If two Christians come up with contradictory teachings from the Scriptures, the only way to see who is right is to look at the rest of the Tradition.

St Augustine became truely a pure an sincere man, and these things are revealed to Him. Many other scholars, may have studied the bible much more than st Augustine, but if they were not pure, the holy spirit did not reveal to them. Therefore their interpretations are from their own imagination, not from holy spirit.

St. John Chrysostom was not only well-trained in Christian theology, but he was also pure and sincere of heart; in fact, he earned the anger of the Emperor and Empress, along with the entirety of the higher echelons of Constantinopolitan society, because he lived a simple life of piety and prayer, rejecting all the wealth and splendor that usually came with being the Archbishop of Constantinople. He constantly exhorted the people to stronger faith and devotion, and wasn't afraid to ruffle feathers when needed. He spent his life defending the Faith against attacks from all sides, and educating the faithful in the meaning of Scripture. The very name "Chrysostom", meaning "golden-mouthed", was given to him in honor of both his eloquence and brilliance.

He ended his life being marched to death in the furthest and most remote corner of the Empire, exiled from his bishopric by the Emperor and Empress. The last words out of his mouth were "Glory to God for all things."

Augustine was a very brilliant man in his own right, but being wholly ignorant of more than half of the Christian world since he didn't know Greek, he ended up coming up with his own conclusions on problems that had already been resolved in the East. And his solutions very often differed from those in the East, because whereas the Church Fathers in the East spoke the language of the Scriptures and had traditions and teachings passed on from St. Peter and the other Apostles, Augustine had nothing but his training in Latin philosophy to go off of.

This meant that, when Augustine came to a conclusion about how the Scriptures should be interpreted or defended, his conclusions were based solely off of Latin philosophy, which has completely different foundations from those of Christianity. He tried to do his best with what he had at his disposal, and it did the job well enough. But it is still clear that Augustine was on his own and improvising on the fly. This is in clear contrast to the Apostolic Fathers and the later Eastern Fathers, since they all had direct access to the oral and written teachings of the Apostles, and they didn't have to invent any of their own solutions as Augustine did. They simply upheld and continued the same things the Apostles had taught.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The Protestants say the same thing. Look at how that's worked out for them--thousands upon thousands of different Protestant denominations, and there are more shatterings and fragmentations all the time. Sola Scriptura does not work. Anyone can claim to be led by the Spirit, and they may even fool themselves into believing such a thing. But, as I have explained before, the Bible is not a stand-alone book. It is only one small part of a larger Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles. If you remove the Bible from that larger context of Tradition, you cannot hope to correctly interpret it all.

It is the Bible that says, only Holy Spirit can reveal the True interpretations. If Protestant says this, they say it based on Bible, though it doesn't mean they have received the Holy Spirit or not, just as any other Christian denominations.

Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. But does the Holy Spirit teach two Christians contradictory teachings? Of course not. If two Christians come up with contradictory teachings from the Scriptures, the only way to see who is right is to look at the rest of the Tradition.

No, every person is responsible to pray and become pure so the holy spirit may reveal the truth to him. The traditions themselves are based on sayings of other men. There is no proof these traditions are infallible. How do you know if you use those traditions, they lead you to truth?
Moreover, it is not always agreeable, which traditions are to be used.
And, many parts of the New Testaments are allegory, and visions, that the traditions do not explain. As it was written from beginning "Do not interpretations belong to God?"

 

[Shiranui117]

It is the Bible that says, only Holy Spirit can reveal the True interpretations. If Protestant says this, they say it based on Bible, though it doesn't mean they have received the Holy Spirit or not, just as any other Christian denominations.

Christ established one Church, and guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would lead those within that Church. If the Protestants deviate from that one Church, then they are going to follow their own initiatives and thoughts rather than those of the Spirit. Those who remain in the Church, however, have the help and guidance of the Spirit in the form of the Tradition.

St. Paul said this in the second chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Those in the Church heed this advice of Paul. Those who separate from the Church through their own invented ideas and their own desires, sadly, fail to do so.

No, every person is responsible to pray and become pure so the holy spirit may reveal the truth to him. The traditions themselves are based on sayings of other men. There is no proof these traditions are infallible. How do you know if you use those traditions, they lead you to truth?

Because we can trace the lineage of teaching from the present day all the way back to the Apostles. The Tradition has been the same in the 1st century, in the 4th century, in the 9th century, in the 11th century, in the 18th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries. We can look at those who have espoused the Tradition, and their teachings are all in line with one another. The outliers and the deviations from the norm are clear. This is proof of the Holy Spirit's steady guiding across centuries, continents and cultures.

Moreover, it is not always agreeable, which traditions are to be used.

Even in the case of two Churches being divided, such as the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, our keeping of the Tradition is the same. There may be many historical and political disagreements between the two, along with a lot of bad blood, but still, EO and OO hold virtually the same exact Faith. Even in the realm of Christology, which was the original source of disagreement, the split had more to do with differing languages (Greek vs. Syriac), semantics and politics than actual substantive disagreements in the Faith. Leaders of both our communions have recognized this.

The Tradition is always the same. There are no competing traditions, just one Tradition that derives from the teachings of the Apostles to their students.

The phenomenon of Protestants holding up contradictory Reformation and post-Reformation teachers, different statements of belief, different confessions and wildly differing interpretations of the Bible are unique to the Protestant realm of Christianity. The same thing does not happen among the Apostolic Churches. Our differences are few, and a large percent of those few differences are political and historical, rather than theological--though thanks to the Roman Church's spiritual and theological outlook being too heavily skewed in favor of one man (Augustine) and not being balanced out by the rest of the Church Fathers, there are admittedly some more variations between the Romans and the Eastern Churches in regards to our particular worldviews. Yet even then, we agree on the most fundamental points of the Christian life and Faith.

And, many parts of the New Testaments are allegory, and visions, that the traditions do not explain. As it was written from beginning "Do not interpretations belong to God?"

The Tradition DOES explain the allegory and visions of the Bible. You should really read the Church Fathers before trying to make any sort of statement on what the Tradition does or does not teach.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christ established one Church, and guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would lead those within that Church. If the Protestants deviate from that one Church, then they are going to follow their own initiatives and thoughts rather than those of the Spirit. Those who remain in the Church, however, have the help and guidance of the Spirit in the form of the Tradition.

I think this went really off topic. I don't even care about protestants or Catholics or which denomination is true Christianity.
The point is, only an interpretation that is from Holy Spirit is true.

My friend, there are thousands of Christian denominations. It's not only catholic or protestant. Moreover, if Jesus build a guided church, it is very possible that the church went at some point the wrong way, and at that time, the holy Spirit continued the true church in a new denomination. At least this is how denominations are created, one after another.

St. Paul said this in the second chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Those in the Church heed this advice of Paul. Those who separate from the Church through their own invented ideas and their own desires, sadly, fail to do so.

Because we can trace the lineage of teaching from the present day all the way back to the Apostles. The Tradition has been the same in the 1st century, in the 4th century, in the 9th century, in the 11th century, in the 18th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries. We can look at those who have espoused the Tradition, and their teachings are all in line with one another. The outliers and the deviations from the norm are clear. This is proof of the Holy Spirit's steady guiding across centuries, continents and cultures.

Even in the case of two Churches being divided, such as the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, our keeping of the Tradition is the same. There may be many historical and political disagreements between the two, along with a lot of bad blood, but still, EO and OO hold virtually the same exact Faith. Even in the realm of Christology, which was the original source of disagreement, the split had more to do with differing languages (Greek vs. Syriac), semantics and politics than actual substantive disagreements in the Faith. Leaders of both our communions have recognized this.

The Tradition is always the same. There are no competing traditions, just one Tradition that derives from the teachings of the Apostles to their students.

The phenomenon of Protestants holding up contradictory Reformation and post-Reformation teachers, different statements of belief, different confessions and wildly differing interpretations of the Bible are unique to the Protestant realm of Christianity. The same thing does not happen among the Apostolic Churches. Our differences are few, and a large percent of those few differences are political and historical, rather than theological--though thanks to the Roman Church's spiritual and theological outlook being too heavily skewed in favor of one man (Augustine) and not being balanced out by the rest of the Church Fathers, there are admittedly some more variations between the Romans and the Eastern Churches in regards to our particular worldviews. Yet even then, we agree on the most fundamental points of the Christian life and Faith.

The Tradition DOES explain the allegory and visions of the Bible. You should really read the Church Fathers before trying to make any sort of statement on what the Tradition does or does not teach.

What you need to think about, is the Traditions of Disciples as recorded in New Testament are themselves subject to interpretations. Specially the Book of revelation, which are all visions and prophecies. As regards to the traditions from the church that was gradually developed throughout centuries, If for example, the doctrine of Trinity was really from the holy Spirit, it must have been revealed to the church from beginning, rather than more than 300 years after Christ. Don't you say, from beginning Christ established a true church? then that True church must have been inspired with holy spirit with the doctrine of trinity from beginning rather than after centuries of disagreement and conflicts, finally coming to an agreement. Moreover, there has been many cruel pops, as well as many priests who even did child abuse in the church you claim to be the true church. If the holy spirit is in this church, why it did not guide these pops and priests, and if being in a true church does not necessarily mean, being guided by holy spirit, then how do you know some of those very very old traditions are not developed by some wrong priests and leaders in the true church you believe in?
Moreover, Christ said "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it", it is obvious that the mainstream and majority could not be going thorough the true gate, even as He said: "Many shall say to Me Lord Lord, we did miracles in your name, I shall say to them: Away from me, you evildoers!" It is obvious, these are Christians who call Jesus Lord, Lord and think are doing good works for Him. The Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, etc, do not call Jesus Lord Lord. Moreover, the disciples said there shall be many false teachers and false prophets among Christians. At that time there was only one Church, it is obvious within the same one church even, there has been many false teachers and prophets (those who claim to know of future, like the time of coming Jesus for example).

 

[Shiranui117]

My friend, there are thousands of Christian denominations. It's not only catholic or protestant.

Good, at least you learned something during this conversation.

Moreover, if Jesus build a guided church, it is very possible that the church went at some point the wrong way,

Impossible. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). The Apostle Paul called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it can never fall into error. Individual members may defect, even groups. But the Church as a whole will never fall into error.

and at that time, the holy Spirit continued the true church in a new denomination. At least this is how denominations are created, one after another.

If this were the case, then we should be able to 100% match the teachings of this new denomination with those of the early, original Church. But that is not the case. The only churches or denominations that are consistent with the original Church are the most ancient ones that have remained traditional--in other words, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

And if all the exact same teaching is carried on from an original church into a new denomination, then the new denomination is really no different from the original church from which it came--it is synonymous with the original church.

What you need to think about, is the Traditions of Disciples as recorded in New Testament are themselves subject to interpretations. Specially the Book of revelation, which are all visions and prophecies.

This is why we have the Apostolic Tradition, so we always have the right interpretations, and whatever isn't consistent with the Apostolic Tradition can therefore be weeded out and disposed of.

As regards to the traditions from the church that was gradually developed throughout centuries, If for example, the doctrine of Trinity was really from the holy Spirit, it must have been revealed to the church from beginning, rather than more than 300 years after Christ. Don't you say, from beginning Christ established a true church? then that True church must have been inspired with holy spirit with the doctrine of trinity from beginning rather than after centuries of disagreement and conflicts, finally coming to an agreement.

You would have a point, if the groups such as the Arians and the Docetists and the Sabellians had a line of succession that went all the way back to the Apostles. However, they don't; for example, the Arian heresy began with Arius's teacher Lucian. We know this because no one before Lucian taught this doctrine. The same can be done with the Nestorians (their teaching beginning with the School of Antioch, particularly under Theodore of Mopsuestia) and the Sabellians (whose teachings derive from Praxeas and Noetus). This is in stark contrast to the Trinitarian position, which has always been affirmed by the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, the student of St. John the Apostle and the second successor of St. Peter the Apostle at Antioch, whose writings we have in their complete and original forms.

Moreover, there has been many cruel pops, as well as many priests who even did child abuse in the church you claim to be the true church. If the holy spirit is in this church, why it did not guide these pops and priests, and if being in a true church does not necessarily mean, being guided by holy spirit, then how do you know some of those very very old traditions are not developed by some wrong priests and leaders in the true church you believe in?

Well, the Popes are merely fallible men capable of sinning like the rest of us. Being in the Church does not mean that you are perfect and will never ever sin. Rather, the Church is a hospital for sinners.

If any teachings were invented after the time of the Apostles, then we would be able to trace them to one single person in one area, as we can with the Arians, Sabellians and Nestorians. But with the Apostolic Tradition, the line is continuous and unbroken, reaching clearly back to the Apostles. Whatever was invented afterwards and is contrary to the Tradition can be thrown out. With the case of the Arian heresy, it was roundly condemned; once the bishops heard of Arius's teaching, they unanimously rejected Arius and his teaching. It was a new thing, and the only bishops who supported Arius didn't even know what his teaching actually was. Once they heard it themselves, they abandoned him and sided with the rest of the Church. The Arians competed with the Orthodox for decades, and even had imperial support against the Orthodox on numerous occasions, installing their bishops in Orthodox sees, but they never gained complete control over the Church, and within a few generations they and their new teaching were but a memory.

Moreover, Christ said "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it", it is obvious that the mainstream and majority could not be going thorough the true gate, even as He said: "Many shall say to Me Lord Lord, we did miracles in your name, I shall say to them: Away from me, you evildoers!" It is obvious, these are Christians who call Jesus Lord, Lord and think are doing good works for Him. The Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, etc, do not call Jesus Lord Lord.

I think you misunderstand the "Away from me, you evildoers!" You seem to not be aware of the second part of that: "I do not know you." In order to be saved, we need to have a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ. We need to undergo theosis and metanoia if we wish to be saved. Salvation involves a process of cooperation with God. Those who reject God will not enter Heaven, because Heaven is a state of loving communion with God.

Moreover, the disciples said there shall be many false teachers and false prophets among Christians. At that time there was only one Church, it is obvious within the same one church even, there has been many false teachers and prophets (those who claim to know of future, like the time of coming Jesus for example).

But they will never disperse the flock. They will never lead the Church astray. The Church has been around for 2,000 years and is still going strong, rooting out every heresy and exposing every false teacher. The fact that the Church has never changed her faith is proof of that.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Good, at least you learned something during this conversation.

Impossible. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). The Apostle Paul called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it can never fall into error. Individual members may defect, even groups. But the Church as a whole will never fall into error.

If this were the case, then we should be able to 100% match the teachings of this new denomination with those of the early, original Church. But that is not the case. The only churches or denominations that are consistent with the original Church are the most ancient ones that have remained traditional--in other words, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

And if all the exact same teaching is carried on from an original church into a new denomination, then the new denomination is really no different from the original church from which it came--it is synonymous with the original church.

This is why we have the Apostolic Tradition, so we always have the right interpretations, and whatever isn't consistent with the Apostolic Tradition can therefore be weeded out and disposed of.

You would have a point, if the groups such as the Arians and the Docetists and the Sabellians had a line of succession that went all the way back to the Apostles. However, they don't; for example, the Arian heresy began with Arius's teacher Lucian. We know this because no one before Lucian taught this doctrine. The same can be done with the Nestorians (their teaching beginning with the School of Antioch, particularly under Theodore of Mopsuestia) and the Sabellians (whose teachings derive from Praxeas and Noetus). This is in stark contrast to the Trinitarian position, which has always been affirmed by the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, the student of St. John the Apostle and the second successor of St. Peter the Apostle at Antioch, whose writings we have in their complete and original forms.

Well, the Popes are merely fallible men capable of sinning like the rest of us. Being in the Church does not mean that you are perfect and will never ever sin. Rather, the Church is a hospital for sinners.

If any teachings were invented after the time of the Apostles, then we would be able to trace them to one single person in one area, as we can with the Arians, Sabellians and Nestorians. But with the Apostolic Tradition, the line is continuous and unbroken, reaching clearly back to the Apostles. Whatever was invented afterwards and is contrary to the Tradition can be thrown out. With the case of the Arian heresy, it was roundly condemned; once the bishops heard of Arius's teaching, they unanimously rejected Arius and his teaching. It was a new thing, and the only bishops who supported Arius didn't even know what his teaching actually was. Once they heard it themselves, they abandoned him and sided with the rest of the Church. The Arians competed with the Orthodox for decades, and even had imperial support against the Orthodox on numerous occasions, installing their bishops in Orthodox sees, but they never gained complete control over the Church, and within a few generations they and their new teaching were but a memory.

I think you misunderstand the "Away from me, you evildoers!" You seem to not be aware of the second part of that: "I do not know you." In order to be saved, we need to have a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ. We need to undergo theosis and metanoia if we wish to be saved. Salvation involves a process of cooperation with God. Those who reject God will not enter Heaven, because Heaven is a state of loving communion with God.

But they will never disperse the flock. They will never lead the Church astray. The Church has been around for 2,000 years and is still going strong, rooting out every heresy and exposing every false teacher. The fact that the Church has never changed her faith is proof of that.

My Friend, The Apostolic Traditions were the work of about 3-4 centuries after Jesus. There is a gap of centuries between the time of Jesus, until the time of Apostolic Traditions. How do you know during these few centuries, the original teachings of Christ were not modified in terms of misinterpretations, and the correct interpretation of Bible was transmitted?
Moreover, does the apostolic traditions, explain every single verse of Bible?
SO, for example if a Catholic person wants to know the interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8, is it written in the Apostolic Traditions? If yes, can you do me a favor, and show me what is the interpretation of it, according to Apostolic Traditions?

 

[Shiranui117]

My Friend, The Apostolic Traditions were the work of about 3-4 centuries after Jesus. There is a gap of centuries between the time of Jesus, until the time of Apostolic Traditions.

Wrong. The Apostolic Tradition starts with the books of the New Testament and the Didache, written in the 1st century. Then it continues with the writings of the personal students of the Apostles, such as Ignatius of Antioch (died 107-110 AD) and Polycarp (died 155) who studied under the Apostle John, as well as Clement of Rome, the second or third bishop of Rome, who travelled with St. Paul and was friends with the Church at Corinth. And we have more early Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome during the second century. And in the third century we have such luminaries as Tertullian of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria. There is no "gap of centuries" between the time of Jesus and the Tradition. We have an unbroken line of teachers in every age.

How do you know during these few centuries, the original teachings of Christ were not modified in terms of misinterpretations, and the correct interpretation of Bible was transmitted?

Because, as I said, we have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the rest of the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the first, second and third centuries. We can compare the teachings of the post-Nicene Fathers with the ante-Nicene Fathers, and they agree with each other.

Moreover, does the apostolic traditions, explain every single verse of Bible?
SO, for example if a Catholic person wants to know the interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8, is it written in the Apostolic Traditions? If yes, can you do me a favor, and show me what is the interpretation of it, according to Apostolic Traditions?

First, looking at 2 Peter 3:8 in context:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,[a] the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[c] 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

St. Justin Martyr emphasizes the connection of verse 8 with the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, discussed in the rest of chapter 3 of the Epistle, in his Dialogue with Trypho:

“For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: ‘For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days.2265 For the young man shall be an hundred years old;2266 but the sinner who dies an hundred years old,2267 he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound.2268 Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.’2269 Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life2270] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not 240 complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’2271 is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell2272 a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’2273

In other words, since God said "On the day which you eat of the fruit, you will surely die" in Genesis 3, Adam died within a thousand years--therefore, since one day is a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is a day, Adam died within "one day," since he died within 1,000 years of having eaten of the tree. 2 Peter 3:8 is most commonly associated with creation, Adam, and Revelation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Wrong. The Apostolic Tradition starts with the books of the New Testament and the Didache, written in the 1st century.

Well, this is how Wikipedia defines Apostolic Tradition:

The text of the Apostolic Tradition was part of two main ancient collections of the Church Orders, the Alexandrine Sinodos and the Verona Palimpsest.

If the Apostolic Tradition was work of Hippolytus, it could be dated about AD 215 and its origin would be Rome. On the contrary recent scholars (see Bradshaw[2]) believe that it contains material of separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century,[3] being gathered and compiled on about AD 375-400, probably in Egypt or even to Syria. Some scholars also suggest that the Apostolic Tradition portrays a liturgy that was never celebrated.[4]

Apostolic Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Impossible. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). The Apostle Paul called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it can never fall into error. Individual members may defect, even groups. But the Church as a whole will never fall into error.

When Christ said these words to Peter, He was not appointing Peter as His successor, for He never said, after Himself, all must obey Peter.

In one occasion He asked His disciples, “Whom say ye that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ, in order to confirm the faith of Peter, said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” meaning that the faith of Peter was the true faith.

This saying of Christ is a confirmation of the statement of Peter, For the others in answer to Christ said that He was Elias, and some said John the Baptist, and some others Jeremias or one of the Prophets.
Christ wished by an allusion, to confirm the words of Peter; so on account of the suitability of his name, Peter, He said: “and upon this rock I will build My church,” meaning, your belief that Christ is the Son of the living God will be the foundation of the Religion of God, and upon this belief the foundation of the church of God—which is the Law of God—shall be established.

The meaning is not that a particular denomination represents the Church that Jesus is talking about, or that this Church must be manifested as a true denomination, shall always exist, but it means the Truth is always there, and the darkness cannot overcome the Truth. It is only a convenient opinion that the earliest denomination was the one that had the truth.
So, that Truth always exist, but it is a matter of discovering it. And as Christ said, only a few shall enter its gates, not the mainstream or majority.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 135-137

 

[InvestigateTruth]

First, looking at 2 Peter 3:8 in context:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,[a] the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[c] 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

St. Justin Martyr emphasizes the connection of verse 8 with the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, discussed in the rest of chapter 3 of the Epistle, in his Dialogue with Trypho:

“For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: ‘For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days.2265 For the young man shall be an hundred years old;2266 but the sinner who dies an hundred years old,2267 he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound.2268 Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.’2269 Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life2270] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not 240 complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’2271 is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell2272 a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’2273

In other words, since God said "On the day which you eat of the fruit, you will surely die" in Genesis 3, Adam died within a thousand years--therefore, since one day is a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is a day, Adam died within "one day," since he died within 1,000 years of having eaten of the tree. 2 Peter 3:8 is most commonly associated with creation, Adam, and Revelation.

Well, thank you for finding this. As you see, even these writings themselves are subject to interpretations. Many of his sayings can be symbolic, with certain meaning. And then these traditions are not considered infallible or Scriptures according to Christian belief, are they?

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, this is how Wikipedia defines Apostolic Tradition:

The text of the Apostolic Tradition was part of two main ancient collections of the Church Orders, the Alexandrine Sinodos and the Verona Palimpsest.

If the Apostolic Tradition was work of Hippolytus, it could be dated about AD 215 and its origin would be Rome. On the contrary recent scholars (see Bradshaw[2]) believe that it contains material of separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century,[3] being gathered and compiled on about AD 375-400, probably in Egypt or even to Syria. Some scholars also suggest that the Apostolic Tradition portrays a liturgy that was never celebrated.[4]

Apostolic Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not what I meant when I say Apostolic Tradition. This is what I mean:

Sacred tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sacred tradition or holy tradition is a theological term used in some Christian traditions, primarily in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions, to refer to the fundamental basis of church authority.
The word "tradition" is taken from the Latin trado, tradere meaning to hand over, to deliver, or to bequeath. The teachings of Scripture are written down in the Bible, and are handed on, not only in writing, but also in the lives of those who live according to its teachings. The teachings of Tradition are not necessarily written down, but are lived and are handed on by the lives of those who lived according to its teachings, according to the example of Christ and the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). This perpetual handing on of the teachings of Tradition is called a living Tradition; it is the transmission of the teachings of Tradition from one generation to the next. The term "deposit of faith" refers to the entirety of Jesus Christ's revelation, and is passed to successive generations in two different forms, sacred scripture (the Bible) and sacred tradition (apostolic succession).
In the theology of these churches, sacred scripture is the written part of this larger tradition, recording (albeit sometimes through the work of individual authors) the community's experience of God or more specifically of Jesus Christ. Hence the Bible must be interpreted within the context of sacred tradition and within the community of the church. Sacred tradition, and thus sacred scripture as well, are "inspired," another technical theological term indicating that they contain and communicate the truths of faith and morals God intended to make known for mankind's salvation. This is in contrast to many Protestant traditions, which teach that the Bible alone is a sufficient basis for all Christian teaching (a position known as Sola Scriptura).


You can start reading the article from here: Sacred tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But, especially note this part:

Holy tradition for the Eastern Orthodox is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration, or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky described tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church."[5] It is dynamic in application yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression yet is always the same in essence. The Eastern Orthodox churches do not regard tradition as something which accrues or expands over time. Rather, Orthodox believe tradition is the faith which Jesus Christ taught to the apostles and which they gave to their disciples without any development or deepening in understanding of the faith. It is merely that faith once delivered as understood within the context of lived history.

When Christ said these words to Peter, He was not appointing Peter as His successor, for He never said, after Himself, all must obey Peter.

You misunderstand my use of Matthew 16:18. I don't much care about the foundations of the Roman Papacy. What I REALLY wanted to show from that verse was "And the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church].

In one occasion He asked His disciples, “Whom say ye that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ, in order to confirm the faith of Peter, said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” meaning that the faith of Peter was the true faith.

This saying of Christ is a confirmation of the statement of Peter, For the others in answer to Christ said that He was Elias, and some said John the Baptist, and some others Jeremias or one of the Prophets.

Christ wished by an allusion, to confirm the words of Peter; so on account of the suitability of his name, Peter, He said: “and upon this rock I will build My church,” meaning, your belief that Christ is the Son of the living God will be the foundation of the Religion of God, and upon this belief the foundation of the church of God—which is the Law of God—shall be established.

Yep, this is what I believe. This is the teaching of Tradition.

The meaning is not that a particular denomination represents the Church that Jesus is talking about, or that this Church must be manifested as a true denomination, shall always exist, but it means the Truth is always there, and the darkness cannot overcome the Truth. It is only a convenient opinion that the earliest denomination was the one that had the truth.

Wrong. You can disprove this just by looking at the verse itself: "and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

And, the earliest denomination would be the one with the Truth, since it would continue in the teachings of the Apostles. If that earliest Church ever fell from the Truth, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, which Christ promised would not happen.

Well, thank you for finding this. As you see, even these writings themselves are subject to interpretations. Many of his sayings can be symbolic, with certain meaning. And then these traditions are not considered infallible or Scriptures according to Christian belief, are they?

They are considered the life and experience of the Church, which testify to the truth of Christ. Whenever the Fathers and the whole of Tradition agree on one point, that is the Holy Spirit guiding the faithful to all truth, as Christ promised in John's Gospel.

The Tradition is not considered to be Scriptures, but the Scriptures are considered Tradition.

There are things in Christian belief where it is not mandatory to have only one understanding of a certain verse or passage; many Fathers have come up with many diverse applications and meanings of Scriptures, but all of these are held to be correct, as 1: the meaning of the Scriptures cannot be exhausted, and 2: These diverse meanings do not contradict each other.

This does NOT mean, however, that all interpretations of the Scriptures are equal. Many readings and interpretations of the Scriptures have been deemed heretical and untenable, mainly because they contradict other parts of Scripture, and they also go against the Tradition. And as I said before, heresies always begin with one person at one time, and do not reach back to the Apostles.

Outside of the dogmas and doctrines of the faith, there is room for freedom: For example, since we on Earth can never definitively know what awaits us between death and the Resurrection, even though there is a certain degree of agreement on the concept of Hades, and the concepts of soul sleep (as held by many Protestants) and a temporary obliteration from existence (as the JW's claim) are roundly rejected. One is free to believe, for example, that there are such things as "aerial toll houses" after death. The nature of what exactly will go down in Revelation also allows for diversity of opinion in the Tradition. Not absolutely every possible thing is set in stone by the Tradition, but only the most vital parts of Christian faith and life. These things all Christians must adhere to. Outside of that, you have some freedom.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Wrong. You can disprove this just by looking at the verse itself: "and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

And, the earliest denomination would be the one with the Truth, since it would continue in the teachings of the Apostles. If that earliest Church ever fell from the Truth, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, which Christ promised would not happen.

Well, I disagree with you, regarding the interpretation of the word 'Church' in the verse and I tell you why. You are saying, by church is meant literally a 'church' as a denomination of Christianity. I am saying, within the context 'the church' is not meant a particular denomination that calls themselves Catholics, or Orthodox, or true Christians but by 'the church' is meant, the Religion of God. It is the Religion of God that Christ built based on belief in the living Son of God, and the gates of Hade do not overcome, not a particular people. As I showed, for a long time Catholic church was ruled by the cruel Popes who were acting opposite to Religion of God. Does it mean the Church was lost against hade? was that church the buildings with a cross on them? and just because they were called Church, the Holy Spirit was inside of it? Is that what it is meant by church? No, of course not. The Truth was there, The religion of God was there as described in Bible, but they were not following it, So a particular people who called themselves True Christians were not following it. And if they were not following it sincerely, the holy Spirit did not descend on them, regardless of which building they were.
I agree with you that the disciples of Christ had the correct understanding of Bible and followed it, and that there has been many Saints in Catholism who were truly Christians such as Augustine who became like a star eventually. But I disagree that the current denomination that calls themselves Catholic, or Orthodox, truly represent or follow the Religion of Christ, just as the cruel Popes who called themselves Catholics, but in reality they were not, neither they understood Bible correctly, because it is always possible to distort Bible to suit ones purpose.
Moreover, when Moses Came, He established the religion of God, and there were true saints among them for centuries, but when their Messiah came, only a minority of them at the time of Jesus recognized Him. Those who succeeded in recognition of Christ, can be said had the Truth.. Likewise, Christ said I shall return, and I believe He did, and those who did not recognize Him, cannot be said truly believe in Him and in His return.
The Disciples of Jesus, did not say they were writing a literal Book, neither they wrote an interpretation on the Book of Revelation in detail, and just as the Prophecies of Messiah were misunderstood by many of literalist Jews at the time of Jesus, likewise the Prophecies if return of Christ is misunderstood by many literalist Christians. And as an example, we see how St. Augustine interpreted the 6 days of Genesis as Figurative rather than literal. But most Catholics do not interpret it that way.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I disagree with you, regarding the interpretation of the word 'Church' in the verse and I tell you why. You are saying, by church is meant literally a 'church' as a denomination of Christianity. I am saying, within the context 'the church' is not meant a particular denomination that calls themselves Catholics, or Orthodox, or true Christians but by 'the church' is meant, the Religion of God. It is the Religion of God that Christ built based on belief in the living Son of God, and the gates of Hade do not overcome, not a particular people.

The word "church" was only use twice, and only within gospel. The other 3 gospels (Mark, Luke and John) never say "church" in either the narratives or what Jesus say or taught.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

And even then, Jesus never explained what this "church" is or mean in the 2 verses or in the chapters.

So anyone can interpret what Jesus mean by "church".

What does Jesus mean, by "...I will build my church".

Does he mean an actual building?

As far as we know, neither Jesus nor Peter constructed any building, in their lifetime.

Churches have been established in various cities or towns of the Eastern Mediterranean, by the time of Paul's ministry. And it does seem to be groups of people, if not actual buildings.

And at the 1st chapter of Revelation, there were seven churches in Asia (Minor), not the single church,judging by what you are saying - the "religion of god".

 

[2ndpillar]

Dear Gnostic,
With respect to 2 Peter 3:8, the analogy is taken from Ps 90:4, which can be used several ways. With respect to Rev 13:5, it can be used in concert with the Daniel prophecy of 1/2 week of years, or 3 1/2 weeks of years, which would translate to 42 months, the term length of the reign of Caesar, whose authority was from the dragon, and Caesar, being the 5th head of the beast was "slain, and his fatal wound was healed" (Rev 13:3 & Dan 7:25). The following 10 Roman kings who were known as Augustus Caesar, whose last king in the order, destroyed Jerusalem, the harlot referred to in Rev 17:16

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To me, it is only meant to be symbolic or metaphoric because the verse uses the word "like" or "as" (depending on the translation you are reading).

Ἓν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι μία ἡμέρα παρὰ κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία/hen de touto me lanthaneto humas, agapetoi, hoti mia hemera para kurio hos chilia ete kai chilia ete hos hemera mia

(I've underlined the Greek for "one day", bolded the word for "like/as", and put in italics the Greek for "a thousand years")

"but let this thing [in particular] not escape your notice, beloved, that one day with the Lord [is] as to a thousand years and a thousand years [is with the Lord] as to one day" (translation mine)

First, you are quite right that "like/as" here indicates a metaphor (strictly speaking, at least from a literary perspective, you are also correct that it is a simile). Literally, it would compare two things that are similar, but "a thousand years" is only comparable to "one day" metaphorically (unless one were saying e.g., "a thousand years is like a day in that they are both intervals of time" which clearly isn't the point). Then there is the parallelism. "One day" is first equated with "a 1,000 years", and then "a 1,000 years" is equated with "one day". The only purpose that could be behind this is emphasizing general ways in which time works differently "with the Lord" (or that one can't expect to apply human measures of time here or understand the Lord by such applications).
Second, as I'm sure was noted somewhere this is a quote from Psalms, and requires both the context of Psalms, how Christians re-interpreted scripture in general, and how the authors re-interpretation here works in particular.

The word "church" was only use twice, and only within gospel. The other 3 gospels (Mark, Luke and John) never say "church" in either the narratives or what Jesus say or taught.

It's also important to avoid anachronistic interpretations. The work for "church" (ekklesia) should be interpreted first through its use in the LXX. First, if one believes Jesus did say something like this it would likely be in Aramaic (i.e., the word kahla, cognate with the Hebrew kahal), and we can look to how such terms or similar terms were translated by ekklesia in the LXX. I do recall something about another Aramaic term being possible, but 1) I also recall not being impressed by the argument, 2) I find it tenuous in the extreme to understand a particular term in the Greek that does not show any Semitic influence as being any particular Hebrew or Aramaic term, and 3) we'd still be better of looking at the LXX.


In the LXX the term is similar to its use in Greek in general (a gathering) but it also can carry specifically Jewish connotations like "the people of god" or a gathering in a sense similar to synagogue (which is also Greek, and means a coming together of people). Terms used to refer to "the Church" are best found by looking at the ways in which Paul refers to the earliest Christians: "brothers in the Lord", "body of Christ", etc. When Paul uses ekklesia it is to refer to Christians in a particular locale as much as it is the totality of Christians.

If we go back to Jesus' time and how we might understand the ways in which Jesus understood his following and followers as well as his role (questions we can't hope to answer without a lot of suppositions and assumptions, but we can use the fruits of 2 centuries of historical scholarship and the work of countless scholars). We can be pretty sure that Jesus did see himself as not just a teacher but an eschatological prophet. We can also be pretty sure that he was known to work wonders, that most of his following did not consist of followers but people who showed up when he was around (rather than followed him around). As for his role (avoiding virtually all nuances and particulars), Jesus certainly saw himself as leading and as a leader in some sense. Perhaps most important here is that Simon's nickname is attested to not only by different sources, but by different languages (Paul uses Greek transliteration for the Aramaic "rock"), and that all our sources agree Peter was the lead disciple both while Jesus lived and after.

Given all that, it's probable that Jesus did give Peter this nickname and that it is not unlikely Matthew's explanation of it traces back to a historical truth- Jesus intended Peter to be the foundation of Jesus' following/followers. What Jesus might have believed such a group/gathering/congregation would be requires a volume just to provide a good possible answer. Personally, I think we might look to how John the Baptist's followers remained after John the Baptist was executed as a starting point.

Does he mean an actual building?

The word cannot refer to an actual building. There is something to be said for the "canonical" interpretation (i.e., the one that traces back to the so-called Church Fathers and continues today in the form of the Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Eastern Orthodox) "Church"). It's also an interpretation found in historical scholarship: that Jesus intended to replace the way that temple & people (of YHWH) was understood by replacing the actual, structural "Temple"-building. Maybe this entailed entirely disregarding the Temple-building (complete with authorities and priests). The Qumran community had already done this and it appears as if they weren't alone. In fact, it may be that Jesus intended his "church" to be something like the Qumran community in that it
1) was a gathering of those who really understood what YHWH's kingdom, message, purpose, etc., was
2) welcomed all those who accepted Jesus' interpretation of what the relationship between YHWH and his people was
3) defined itself by Jesus' teachings and what they entailed (e.g., the elements mentioned in 1 and 2 above).

As far as we know, neither Jesus nor Peter constructed any building, in their lifetime.

You have to recall that in Jesus' day the idea of a "Church" (i.e., a place to worship God), was singular- there was one Temple and it was a specific building. Like Israel itself, Jewish understanding of being Jewish in Jesus' day (and before and after) depended centrally on a connection with the land (Israel) itself and the dwelling-place of YHWH (the Temple). The growth and use of synagogues continued after the temple was rebuilt, but both before it was rebuilt and after it was rebuilt no place of worship, Torah study, religious instruction, etc., was ever called "Temple".

The reason it is so vital to understand this is because even people not raised as Christians in the West tend to understand religious buildings (temples, churches, mosques, etc.) as just that: buildings. A cathedral can become a museum just as easily as a missionary to some impoverished region can turn a hut into a church.

Building other temples during Jesus' day would have been just as easy as building other "Israels" (i.e., literally making a land region that wasn't there before and crafting its landscape using the original Israel as a model). However, removing the symbolic and religious understanding/interpretation of the Temple was possible. Jesus' activity in the temple is practically universally agreed to trace to a historical event, and his contention with temple authorities is even more certain and far more illuminating (when people go out to "arrest" you and have you executed, it's usually a good sign they're not your biggest fans).

So we can reasonably assert that Jesus understood the temple as in some way failing to be the way/path to YHWH, and that a symbolic "Temple" consisting of a gathering of followers and continually constructed by practices, teachings, etc., that formed the new path/way to YHWH. Of course, this is pretty vague (what teachings? who constituted followers? etc.), but if I wrote several volumes they wouldn't provide anything that isn't out there already and would be unlikely to convince anybody of anything they didn't already believe.

Churches have been established in various cities or towns of the Eastern Mediterranean, by the time of Paul's ministry. And it does seem to be groups of people, if not actual buildings.

You're right. "Churches" in Paul's time were either specific groups of people (i.e., the church in Jerusalem wasn't a building but referred to the "Christians" in Jerusalem) or all "Christians".

And at the 1st chapter of Revelation

And here I come to a close. To me, using Revelation to understand anything harder and more fruitless than using The Chronicles of Narnia to understand Jesus & Christianity.

 

[gnostic]

With respect to 2 Peter 3:8, the analogy is taken from Ps 90:4, which can be used several ways. With respect to Rev 13:5, it can be used in concert with the Daniel prophecy of 1/2 week of years, or 3 1/2 weeks of years, which would translate to 42 months, the term length of the reign of Caesar, whose authority was from the dragon, and Caesar, being the 5th head of the beast was "slain, and his fatal wound was healed" (Rev 13:3 & Dan 7:25). The following 10 Roman kings who were known as Augustus Caesar, whose last king in the order, destroyed Jerusalem, the harlot referred to in Rev 17:16

Yes, I know. Pegg brought up Psalms 90:4, in post 16. And I had given my reply on subject.

Psalms 90:4 doesn't say 1000 days is equalled to 1 day as some Christians think they do, because it uses word "as" (in KJV) or "like" (in NRSV).

I have noticed from my experiences at RF, some Christian members would take these two different measures of time as one and the same, instead of taking as metaphor with symbolic meaning.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And at the 1st chapter of Revelation, there were seven churches in Asia (Minor), not the single church,judging by what you are saying - the "religion of god".

Well, I suggest each of the major Divine Figures in the world founded a church, 'a Faith' which is referred to as Seven Churches, represented by a symbolic name.
It goes in this order, from old to the last one, before return of Christ:

1. Sabeanism a very ancient Religion, whose Founder is unknown.
2. Hinduism Church Founded by Krishna and other Hindu manifestations.
3. Jewish Church Founded by Moses
4. Zoroastrianism Church Founded by Zoroaster
5. Buddhism Founded by Buddha
6. Christian Church Founded by Jesus
7. Islam Founded by Muhammad

The Chapter of Revelation is written based on prophetic visions that John had, and the vision's are meant for future, even-though in the dream it appears as present time. So, although He saw these things in His time, they are Prophecies regarding the return of Christ, which can be understood, at His return He invites all other Worldwide churches into His own Church. In our view this is fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, I suggest each of the major Divine Figures in the world founded a church, 'a Faith' which is referred to as Seven Churches, represented by a symbolic name.
It goes in this order, from old to the last one, before return of Christ:

1. Sabeanism a very ancient Religion, whose Founder is unknown.
2. Hinduism Church Founded by Krishna and other Hindu manifestations.
3. Jewish Church Founded by Moses
4. Zoroastrianism Church Founded by Zoroaster
5. Buddhism Founded by Buddha
6. Christian Church Founded by Jesus
7. Islam Founded by Muhammad

Completely wrong on all seven counts. Have you ever read the book of Revelation? St. John was writing to seven historically-known churches in Asia Minor, to churches in well-known towns.

The Chapter of Revelation is written based on prophetic visions that John had, and the vision's are meant for future, even-though in the dream it appears as present time. So, although He saw these things in His time, they are Prophecies regarding the return of Christ, which can be understood, at His return He invites all other Worldwide churches into His own Church. In our view this is fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.

Well, it does prophesy future events. But the letters to seven churches were just that: Letters to seven communities of Christians in seven cities. You should read the first five or so chapters of Revelation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Completely wrong on all seven counts. Have you ever read the book of Revelation? St. John was writing to seven historically-known churches in Asia Minor, to churches in well-known towns.

Well, it does prophesy future events. But the letters to seven churches were just that: Letters to seven communities of Christians in seven cities. You should read the first five or so chapters of Revelation.

In our view, it is allegorical. This was a vision, not something that actually literally happened.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, I disagree with you, regarding the interpretation of the word 'Church' in the verse and I tell you why. You are saying, by church is meant literally a 'church' as a denomination of Christianity. I am saying, within the context 'the church' is not meant a particular denomination that calls themselves Catholics, or Orthodox, or true Christians but by 'the church' is meant, the Religion of God.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The true Church founded by Christ is a vehicle for the true Faith given by God, and it is the totality of all those who hold to that Faith.

It is the Religion of God that Christ built based on belief in the living Son of God, and the gates of Hade do not overcome, not a particular people.

And He also established the Apostles as shepherds over that Church. The Church is also a body of believers with a hierarchy.

As I showed, for a long time Catholic church was ruled by the cruel Popes who were acting opposite to Religion of God.

Yet none of them actually preached falsehood. Their lives were morally deplorable, but they never subverted the dogmas of the Faith.

Does it mean the Church was lost against hade?

If the Church ever falls away from the Faith, then yes, it would lose against Hades. And that cannot happen.

was that church the buildings with a cross on them?

Wrong. As others have eruditely pointed out, the word "church" doesn't mean a building, it's a body of believers.

and just because they were called Church, the Holy Spirit was inside of it?

The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church and within the Church, yes.

Is that what it is meant by church? No, of course not. The Truth was there, The religion of God was there as described in Bible, but they were not following it, So a particular people who called themselves True Christians were not following it.

Heretics remove themselves from the Church by turning against the dogmas of the Faith. Those who act contrary to their Faith aren't much better.

And if they were not following it sincerely, the holy Spirit did not descend on them, regardless of which building they were.

Well, no. The Holy Spirit comes upon all Christians at baptism. Whether we decide to heed the Holy Spirit within us is another question. It doesn't mean we don't have the Holy Spirit inside us, it just means that the Spirit is inside us, but we don't care about His guidance.

I agree with you that the disciples of Christ had the correct understanding of Bible and followed it, and that there has been many Saints in Catholism who were truly Christians such as Augustine who became like a star eventually. But I disagree that the current denomination that calls themselves Catholic, or Orthodox, truly represent or follow the Religion of Christ, just as the cruel Popes who called themselves Catholics, but in reality they were not, neither they understood Bible correctly, because it is always possible to distort Bible to suit ones purpose.

And the possibility of distorting the Bible is precisely why we have the Apostolic/Sacred Tradition, to keep that from happening.

And one man who lives a morally depraved live is not proof that the Church fell away from the Faith--even if that man is the Pope. Individuals may fail to uphold the Truth. But the Church will always stand strong in the Faith. And the true Church, the "denomination" that holds the faith of the Apostles and of the Fathers, that "denomination" is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The Disciples of Jesus, did not say they were writing a literal Book, neither they wrote an interpretation on the Book of Revelation in detail, and just as the Prophecies of Messiah were misunderstood by many of literalist Jews at the time of Jesus, likewise the Prophecies if return of Christ is misunderstood by many literalist Christians. And as an example, we see how St. Augustine interpreted the 6 days of Genesis as Figurative rather than literal. But most Catholics do not interpret it that way.

You can interpret things both figuratively and literally. That's called "analogy" and "typology," both of which are immensely popular in Biblical exegesis.

Also note that Augustine never denied the literal meaning of Genesis. He simply assigned a further, analogical meaning.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The two are not mutually exclusive. The true Church founded by Christ is a vehicle for the true Faith given by God, and it is the totality of all those who hold to that Faith.

And He also established the Apostles as shepherds over that Church. The Church is also a body of believers with a hierarchy.

Yet none of them actually preached falsehood. Their lives were morally deplorable, but they never subverted the dogmas of the Faith.

If the Church ever falls away from the Faith, then yes, it would lose against Hades. And that cannot happen.

Wrong. As others have eruditely pointed out, the word "church" doesn't mean a building, it's a body of believers.

The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church and within the Church, yes.

Heretics remove themselves from the Church by turning against the dogmas of the Faith. Those who act contrary to their Faith aren't much better.

Well, no. The Holy Spirit comes upon all Christians at baptism. Whether we decide to heed the Holy Spirit within us is another question. It doesn't mean we don't have the Holy Spirit inside us, it just means that the Spirit is inside us, but we don't care about His guidance.

And the possibility of distorting the Bible is precisely why we have the Apostolic/Sacred Tradition, to keep that from happening.

And one man who lives a morally depraved live is not proof that the Church fell away from the Faith--even if that man is the Pope. Individuals may fail to uphold the Truth. But the Church will always stand strong in the Faith. And the true Church, the "denomination" that holds the faith of the Apostles and of the Fathers, that "denomination" is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

You can interpret things both figuratively and literally. That's called "analogy" and "typology," both of which are immensely popular in Biblical exegesis.

Also note that Augustine never denied the literal meaning of Genesis. He simply assigned a further, analogical meaning.

My friend, to say Christianity have traditions that we can refer to and see the interpretations of verses of Bible with absolute certainty and infallibility is not true in my opinion. Firstly the Traditions in New Testament are subject to interpretations. The apostles did not write a detail interpretation of Bible, and it is not like Paul or other apostles are alive today so that Christians can go and ask them, what they meant when they said this verse, or that verse. Did they mean literal, did they mean allegorical, symbolic...etc. That is why Christians uses their own judgement and opinions to say which is literal, and which is not, and of course most often they disagree, even within the same denomination, as I will show below some examples.

With regards to other traditions than New Testament, those are the writings of Saints, Christian leaders and scholars, it is obvious, these traditions are not guaranteed to be infallible, or scriptures that are inspired by God. As the interpretations of Saints differ from each other and the opinions of scholars differ from each other, and Christians may prefer interpretations of a particular saint over another, or interpretations of a particular scholar over another.

That is the reason, the Christians differ about interpretations, as I have shown even within Catholism, Christians differ with regards to interpretation of many verses. If you read about Augustine, you see, his view gradually changed from literalism, to allegorical interpretation of genesis, until finally when he wrote his book titled 'final confession' he thanked God, that He finally guided Him, and showed Him the Truth.
Another example is Jesus Himself said in chapter of John such words: "I was speaking Figuratively, the time is coming when I shall speak plainly"
Augustine said that, this verse means when Christ returns, He shall speak plainly about God, and reveal those things He used to speak Figuratively. Now do all Catholics or Orthodox agree on the interpretation of this verse with Augustine? I have seen they say differently. Does it mean Augustine was wrong or others are wrong? A Christian cannot claim 'I am right, you are wrong' with proof, because as I said, Apostles did not write a detail interpretations, neither they are alive today so you can ask them what they meant, or what Jesus meant, when He said this or that. Therefore all can be done is continuing arguing and debating, as Christian denominations, and sub-denominations, and sub-sub-denominations have been doing for centuries.