The New Testament: Orthodoxy and Heresy

[Túrin Turambar]

Note: This thread was originally "The Kingdom of God: Fashionably Late?". I have given it a less flippant name more appropriate to its broader subject matter

Matthew 24:34: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

Mark 13:30: “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.”

Luke 9:27: “But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.”

Luke 21:32: “This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”

Have I read these verses wrongly, or does Jesus suggest to his disciples that the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God will come within their lifetimes? Indeed, many of the books of the New Testament emphasise this (eg: James 5:8: “The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”).

This could be an issue with translation (I’m quoting from the KJV here) but isn’t this pretty significant? Or is there an explanation?

[JewelSong]

Not only does Jesus suggest this, but most early Christians (although they weren't called that) believed it. That's why a lot of stuff wasn't written down and recorded for 50+ years after Jesus' death - people thought he was coming back any minute.

[Túrin Turambar]

I hate to be provocative or anything, but isn’t it an issue for Christianity as a whole that he was, well, wrong?

Just to give some background as to where this all came from, I’ve been reading the New Testament recently with an eye for teasing out the differences between the different authors. What has struck me is that what Jesus is actually recorded saying about salvation is radically different to what most modern Christians seem to believe (which is largely based on Paul’s writings). One thing that struck me is that Jesus seems to be implying to the people that he is preaching to that they will have the chance to live through to the end times, and that “ He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13)

[Lurker]

You are reading the bible literally, my friend.

For me, that passage is about "going through all the trials here on earth without giving up your faith or giving up hope. For me, it is similar to what he has endured on the cross. Yes, he said "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me!" shows that he is also human but he never ever asked to be saved on the spot. (He's the Son of God, he could easily have proved that.) The "end" here for me is your time on earth, not the end of the world.

Princess' friend keeps telling us that all this stuff happening in the world right now is a sign that the end times is coming that we should start "preparing ourselves". I asked her, "Shouldn't you be prepared by now?"

[Lalaith]

Taking Matt. 24:34 in context, you'll see in v. 33:

"even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door"

combined with v. 34, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

"This generation" refers to "when you see all these things," i.e., those people who see the signs and events referenced in the previous verses (v. 14 onward).


Luke 9:27, Jesus is talking to his disciples specifically. Immediately after telling them that some of them with him would not die before seeing the kingdom of God we have the Transfiguration of Jesus, which was witnessed by Peter, John, and James. This was a time when Jesus' full glory was revealed (albeit briefly) to those who were with him, as well as a discussion (apparently) about the things Jesus was about to do in Jerusalem, i.e., die on the cross.

It leads me to the question of, "What does the phrase 'kingdom of God' mean?" I've always understood it to mean a variety of things, specifically as a sort of all-encompassing term for the life and ministry of Jesus, as well as sometimes referring to the end of times.

This article looks decent at first glance: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_kingdom.html

[Túrin Turambar]

combined with v. 34, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

"This generation" refers to "when you see all these things," i.e., those people who see the signs and events referenced in the previous verses (v. 14 onward).

It’s possible, but such a specific meaning could only be derived from the original Greek I think.

For example, when a man asks Jesus what he needs to do to be saved, he tells him to follow Mosaic Law and give all his possessions to the poor (Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22). Similarly, he suggests that those willing should castrate themselves to ward off sexual immorality (Matthew 19:12). Neither of these things seems like the basis for a long-term (ie. multi-generational) strategy.

As to the discussion on the Kingdom of God, both Matthew 24 and Luke 18 seem to associate the Kingdom of God with salvation –

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing [to be saved]: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Unless a number of different words are translated as Kingdom of God (and the site you linked to doesn’t suggest it) then the coming of the Kingdom of God specifically refers to the last judgement, when the righteous will pass into eternal life.

[Frelga]

I hate to be provocative or anything

Oh, sure!

One thing that struck me is that Jesus seems to be implying to the people that he is preaching to that they will have the chance to live through to the end times, and that “ He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13)

Correct, and if you look at the historical context you will see why. There was a lot of tension in Middle East in those days. The God's contract with the People of Israel didn't seem to hold anymore. Pagan Romans oppressed Judea every which way with no sign of divine interference.

Political rule was in turmoil, with people always at the edge of the revolt against Roman rule, with uprisings boiling over and being put down cruelly, thousands crucified. Roman-appointed Jewish rulers walked the tightrope between keeping the Romans satisfied and keeping the Jewish people from a large-scale revolt, which they realized would be disastrous.

At the same time, another cauldron was boiling - that of ideas. One struggle was between the allure of Hellenization and the adherence to the Jewish tradition. At the same time, the shift was slowly happening from the Temple being the center of the Jewish life to the synagogue taking over some of it's functions as a house of assembly and prayer. The latter view was supported by the Pharisees, and it was that which insured the eventual survival of the Judaism after the Second Temple fell.

Anyway, that was a bit of the digression. The point is, the task of the spiritual leaders was to reconcile the fact that the pagans apparently had the upper hand against those who adhered to Jewish law to the continued adherence to that Law.

One of the ideas that boiled to the surface at the time was that the God was going to get down to business real soon now and clean up the place, rewarding the righteous. To which the reasonable response was, but what if I am crucified tomorrow, what good does that do me if the God rewards the righteous the day after? That was so manifestly unfair that a new idea took root - that God will bring back the righteous dead to enjoy their well-deserved reward.

Enter Jesus. He was one of those preaching that new line - that if the people remain faithful just that little bit longer, they will, literally, see the end of the oppression and the eternal resurrection. In fact, he preached not only adherence to the Mosaic Law ("it is written") but going far above and beyond it ("but I am telling you").

In that context, the extreme pronouncements for celibacy and poverty make sense - there is no point in procreation, no need for industry, when God's Kingdom on Earth is about to dawn. This millennial mindset prevailed throughout both early Christian communities and many other Jewish communities following the destruction of the Second Temple.

[MithLuin]

It does depend on what is meant by the kingdom of God. If Jesus was referring to the end of time, then he was rather embarrasingly wrong, seeing as how it's now 2000 years later.

But I don't think he was, which is why I can unabashedly profess to believe what he says .

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Luke 17:20-21

Thus, when Jesus made all those statements about the kingdom coming before people standing there died? He meant he would die, rise again, ascend into heaven and send the Holy Spirit before his listeners died. Which he did, circa AD 33. Jesus wasn't just preaching the Kingdom of God - he was proclaiming it.

At least, that explanation works for me. Certainly, the early Church did believe Jesus was coming back any day now. Over time, 'from now til kingdom come' took on the meaning of 'until the end of time.' They're both right - Jesus' kingdom started immediately, because being a member of his kingdom is a matter of being a Christian and leading that life. But it is also true that Jesus promised to come back, and being a apocalyptic religion, Christians are ready for him to appear at any time. We're supposed to live every day as if it were our last, and not put off til tomorrow...."if today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts." The fulfillment of the Kingdom does wait for his return, and no matter how many glimpses of it we get in this life, the fullness of the kingdom rests in heaven - so, yeah, the endtimes, or at least lights out for me personally . "Thy will be done, thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven." That is what he taught us to pray. Now and for always.

I realize that this is a difficult topic - I am explaining how I see it, not saying that no other interpretations of those passages are possible. Christians have been asking the question, "So, why didn't Jesus come back when he said he would?" since the first century. To remain a Christian, it is important to answer it in an honest and satisfactory way. Most people I know answer it as, "He's giving us as long as we need - he'll come back when we're ready." One translation offers "race" instead of "generation" in "This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34) But the important part is that Jesus himself claimed not to know when the world would end: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36 So, it's okay to treat the urgency as being outside of time.

There are two huge impediments to becoming a member of the Kingdom of God. It is easiest to do so if you are like a child and poor. If you are not...not so much.

It may seem counter-intuitive to encourage giving away all your possessions or living a life of celibacy if you would like your religion to grow (or even just continue to the next generation), but as long as not everyone does that, it isn't a problem. The monastic lifestyle has worked out for a good chunk of Christian history, and it hasn't managed to stifle the religion yet . Even when groups like the Franciscans or the Missionaries of Charity chose to live in abject poverty and rely entirely on donations from others...it worked out. And it gives others an opportunity to be generous and practice charity, which makes it good for everybody, not just the people living that life.

But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Matthew 19:11-12

Celibacy is a calling, and obviously not everyone has it. The idea of becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom may seem strange, but it isn't that everyone must do so, but rather that for those who are called to that lifestyle, it will be the best way for them to enter the kingdom. It is one way of imitating Jesus. We are all called to love, to give of ourselves totally. For most people, that happens in marriage.

JPII's explanation of celibacy for the kingdom

We don't believe that such a life is fruitless or barren.

And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Luke 18:29-30

As long as vowed celibacy is lived out as sharing in the life of God, it is giving of self, and such gifts are never empty. Two members of my family will be making a commitment along these lines within the next year or so.

My father is being ordained a deacon next month, and that does involve promising celibacy in the event that my mother predeceases him - he would not be permitted to remarry, as ordination is an impediment to matrimony (though not the other way around). He is quick to assure people that he is not taking a vow of celibacy (he isn't!), but he is accepting that future, should it occur. Meaning, he is making the decision now that he would live as a celibate widower, should he ever become a widower. Part of the preparation and discernment process was for my parents to discuss that possibility, and they both agreed to it.

My sister intends to enter the Sister Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus this summer. She won't be taking any vows for a few years (nor will she give away all her belongings right away), but she will begin 'training' for that lifestyle in preparation for taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. To be honest, she's most worried about obedience - it is difficult not to be in charge of your own future!

As an unmarried person, I could say that my life isn't much different - after all, I do not have a husband I am giving myself to or vice versa. But, it's not the same at all. I haven't made any promises, and so I have not committed myself to the lifestyle I now lead. I could always change it in the future. I see 'celibacy for the kingdom' as something very different, because it involves a promise, just like wedding vows, and it is a total dedication of one's life...just like wedding vows.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is a fascinating discussion, all the way around. Thank you, friends.

[Lurker]

Two members of my family will be making a commitment along these lines within the next year or so.

Wow Mith, congratulations to your family!!!
One of my best friends is studying to become a deacon but I think he has to be 35 to be ordained, right? He always wanted to become a priest but unfortunately he fell in love and got married. One time he was asked to give a speech in front of the young people in the parish and man, they loved him since he incorporates sports and pop culture in his "sermon-like" speech. Who would have thought hockey and the bible can be placed together in a religious speech.

Is you sister going to be one of those "cloistered nuns"? Reading th link I guess she is not, since she will do outreach. I have a distant relative who is Carmelite nun. We have to make arrangements to visit her and we have to talk through a "barrier" of sorts.

[Túrin Turambar]

It just occurred to me (from Mith’s post about the Kingdom of God being on earth) that the concentration of Gnostic scripture and Gnostic interpretations of Jesus’ life and teachings in the early second century might have something to do with this issue. Gnosticism promises escape from the corrupt, physical realm to a perfect, spiritual one through the acquisition of secret knowledge. Specifically, the gnostic-influnced Gospel of Thomas suggests that the apocalypse is happening as promised, but in the spiritual realm where we can’t see it.

The only particular issue that I have with the idea that the Kingdom of God has already started is that the Gospels strongly suggest that it will be heralded by angels and earthquakes and the like, and will be a place where the righteous enjoy eternal life. So while I can (sort of) accept the Gnostic interpretation that it has started in the spiritual realm, I have a harder time separating it from the concept of end times.

There are two huge impediments to becoming a member of the Kingdom of God. It is easiest to do so if you are like a child and poor. If you are not...not so much.

It may seem counter-intuitive to encourage giving away all your possessions or living a life of celibacy if you would like your religion to grow (or even just continue to the next generation), but as long as not everyone does that, it isn't a problem. The monastic lifestyle has worked out for a good chunk of Christian history, and it hasn't managed to stifle the religion yet . Even when groups like the Franciscans or the Missionaries of Charity chose to live in abject poverty and rely entirely on donations from others...it worked out. And it gives others an opportunity to be generous and practice charity, which makes it good for everybody, not just the people living that life.

But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Matthew 19:11-12

Celibacy is a calling, and obviously not everyone has it. The idea of becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom may seem strange, but it isn't that everyone must do so, but rather that for those who are called to that lifestyle, it will be the best way for them to enter the kingdom. It is one way of imitating Jesus. We are all called to love, to give of ourselves totally. For most people, that happens in marriage.

JPII's explanation of celibacy for the kingdom

We don't believe that such a life is fruitless or barren.

And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Luke 18:29-30

As long as vowed celibacy is lived out as sharing in the life of God, it is giving of self, and such gifts are never empty. Two members of my family will be making a commitment along these lines within the next year or so.

My father is being ordained a deacon next month, and that does involve promising celibacy in the event that my mother predeceases him - he would not be permitted to remarry, as ordination is an impediment to matrimony (though not the other way around). He is quick to assure people that he is not taking a vow of celibacy (he isn't!), but he is accepting that future, should it occur. Meaning, he is making the decision now that he would live as a celibate widower, should he ever become a widower. Part of the preparation and discernment process was for my parents to discuss that possibility, and they both agreed to it.

My sister intends to enter the Sister Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus this summer. She won't be taking any vows for a few years (nor will she give away all her belongings right away), but she will begin 'training' for that lifestyle in preparation for taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. To be honest, she's most worried about obedience - it is difficult not to be in charge of your own future!

As an unmarried person, I could say that my life isn't much different - after all, I do not have a husband I am giving myself to or vice versa. But, it's not the same at all. I haven't made any promises, and so I have not committed myself to the lifestyle I now lead. I could always change it in the future. I see 'celibacy for the kingdom' as something very different, because it involves a promise, just like wedding vows, and it is a total dedication of one's life...just like wedding vows.

I had never actually associated Roman Catholic Holy Orders with those passages from the Gospels, but it makes perfect sense in retrospect. It’s almost like a form of collective salvation through the church, where certain members undertake the duties of poverty and celibacy on behalf of everyone (which I suppose is basically what Catholicism is). I have to admit that I haven’t quite shaken my Low Church Anglican religious education induced suspicion of the Catholic Church, so I tend to assume that these things are just quirky dogma. Still, it’s an interesting approach to the problem.

The next question, then, is why the Evangelical Protestant movement seems so dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation. They seem particularly keen to quote Paul, and what he says about salvation through faith alone, but I don’t see why the words of Paul should carry more weight than those of Christ himself

The next issue I was taking an interest in is the different concepts of salvation and damnation in the different NT books (and the apocrypha), but that might be an issue for another thread.

[Lalaith]

The only particular issue that I have with the idea that the Kingdom of God has already started is that the Gospels strongly suggest that it will be heralded by angels and earthquakes and the like, and will be a place where the righteous enjoy eternal life. So while I can (sort of) accept the Gnostic interpretation that it has started in the spiritual realm, I have a harder time separating it from the concept of end times.

Well, you shouldn't necessarily separate it from the concept of the end times. Quite often there is a present tense meaning to something in Scripture (an event or a common term) and a future tense meaning. (Or you will find a dual meaning to certain passages.) The Kingdom of God does often speak to the life and ministry of Jesus himself, i.e., that he is, at that time, proclaiming that the Kingdom of God is here. As Mith said, Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God by his very life, death, and resurrection.

But he also speaks to the end times (sometimes) when he uses the term "Kingdom of God." (This is what my study has shown, anyway, and there are different schools of thought on this subject for sure!) The passages where he mentions the Abomination of Desolation, the olive tree putting out buds, etc. that then go on to say, "This generation (or race) shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled," have to do with the physical coming of the Kingdom of God, i.e., the End Times.

I look at it this way. Jesus ushered in a spiritual Kingdom of God. The end times will usher in a physical Kingdom of God. Same phrase, varied meanings.

The next question, then, is why the Evangelical Protestant movement seems so dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation. They seem particularly keen to quote Paul, and what he says about salvation through faith alone, but I don’t see why the words of Paul should carry more weight than those of Christ himself.

What do you mean specifically, and I'll attempt to give an answer. (Though I must warn you that, although I attend a Baptist church, I do not consider myself Baptist. So you might get an atypical Protestant response.)


Mith, that is really neat about your dad and your sister.

[Pearly Di]

The next question, then, is why the Evangelical Protestant movement seems so dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation. They seem particularly keen to quote Paul, and what he says about salvation through faith alone, but I don’t see why the words of Paul should carry more weight than those of Christ himself

I've been part of Evangelical Protestantism for all my Christian life and I wouldn't say that the Christians I know are 'dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation'. I know many Christians who take stuff about feeding the poor and living out one's faith extremely seriously.

Evangelicals certainly have a high regard for Paul (and some may regard him as a higher authority than Jesus although I would have to part company with them there since I don't regard Paul as better than Jesus ).

The next issue I was taking an interest in is the different concepts of salvation and damnation in the different NT books (and the apocrypha), but that might be an issue for another thread.

Sounds interesting, Lord_M.

One of my best friends is studying to become a deacon but I think he has to be 35 to be ordained, right? He always wanted to become a priest but unfortunately he fell in love and got married.

'Unfortunately'? I hate to sound like I'm jumping on just one word, Lurker, but that kind of struck me as ... odd.

I believe that all Christians are called by Christ to follow Him 100% (not that all of us live up to this ) and that applies to us equally whether we are single or married.

But I don't see falling in love and getting married as inferior to intentional celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

[Lurker]

Let me correct that statement, unfortunately for "the church" (I'm Catholic ) he got married which means he can't become a Catholic priest but he can be a deacon instead.

I agree with you 100% cause I'm in the same boat as my friend, you know, contemplated about becoming a seminarian but I choose a different path instead. I do believe that even if you are married you could still follow him 100% no doubt about it. He would have been an excellent priest (we even teased him he is a shoo-in for papacy) in my opinion since even when we were little kids he's the one who always reminds us to be good Christians and sometimes act as our conscience.

I apologize if deviated from the thread.

[yovargas]

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36

Interesting to see Jesus saying that he doesn't actually know. But the Father does. Makes wrapping your head around the concept of the Trinity extra fun. As usual.

[MithLuin]

An aside about religious life - while it is more traditionally associated with the Catholic and Orthodox varieties of Christianity, it is not unknown in the Protestant tradition. I read some translations written by Anglican nuns in England at one point...I think they may have been in the Benedictine tradition. I remember they were Protestant because they translated St. Anselm's meditations about Christ, but not the saints . A current group is the Taize community, which is ecumenical in nature. The founder (Brother Roger) was not Catholic.

One of my best friends is studying to become a deacon but I think he has to be 35 to be ordained, right? He always wanted to become a priest but unfortunately he fell in love and got married.

The requirements vary by diocese. Some dioceses only accept older candidates who are not still raising kids and will be semi-retired by the time they are ordained. Most have a maximum age cut-off, and I guess a min. as well (though that was not an issue for my dad; he's second oldest in his class ). The Permanent Diaconate has only recently been re-introduced since the time of the early church (ie, by Vatican II), so it will take awhile to determine how deacons will be used by the local church. Some dioceses don't have any at all. It is a lengthy formation process (about 4 years), and you study the same things the priests study in seminary.

If your friend is discerning this ordained ministry, he should contact the vocations director of the diocese. Even if he's too young now, he'll be able to apply earlier if he's aware of the timeline. Also, he can get involved now (as a layperson) in ministries such as hospital chaplaincy, prison ministry or religious education.

'Unfortunately'? I hate to sound like I'm jumping on just one word, Lurker, but that kind of struck me as ... odd.

I believe that all Christians are called by Christ to follow Him 100% (not that all of us live up to this ) and that applies to us equally whether we are single or married.

But I don't see falling in love and getting married as inferior to intentional celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

I took it as a bit of a joke, but yeah, I could see how that word rubs the wrong way. The fact is, we have a shortage of priests, so some people do find it unfortunate when a man who was considering the priesthood decides to get married instead. A *bit* presumptuous, to have opinions about other people's important life decisions, but hey, that's human nature.

Marriage is not inferior to celibacy for the kingdom. Marriage as a sacrament shows us in reality what Christ's love for the Church looks like - total, self-sacrificial love is pretty impressive, and a marriage well-lived points to God more surely than anything else on earth.

Celibacy for the kingdom points to the union of the soul with God in heaven, where people neither marry nor are given in marriage. Therefore celibacy is only 'better' than marriage in the sense that heaven is better than earth - what is pointed to is better, but the quality of the lived reality depends upon the individual.

Marriage is horrible for people who shouldn't be married, and celibacy is horrible for people who shouldn't be celibate. Both are a calling, and both require love - as you say, giving 100%. Or more . The purpose of discernment is to figure out what path God is calling you to, and trust that he will give you the graces you need. There are 'wrong reasons' to run off to a convent, just as there are bad reasons to get married. In fact, they tend to be the same.....


Lurker, the group my sister wants to join is active-contemplative. The cloistered groups are pure contemplative, and they are the ones with grilles (though not all contemplatives are so strictly cloistered). Contemplative groups are generally able to do their ministries within the cloister - they make altar breads and linens, or greeting cards, etc. Basically, some sort of work to support them. Active groups are ones with ministry outside the convent. Active-contemplative is a combination - generally, they do have a rather extensive prayer life, but engage in ministry work as well. My cousin is in the Nashville Dominicans, and they are essentially cloistered during their formation, but are trained as teachers, so that is the work they do after they take their vows. Mother Teresa described her Missionaries of Charity as 'contemplatives in the midst of the world.'


I will return to your comments later, Lord M, time permitting.....

[Lurker]

Thanks for answering, Mith. My friend is actually studying right now for deaconship. He is 32 and no kids. As far as I know he has been studying since he was in his late 20's but he works as a contractual electrical engineer so he drives to different towns all the time that's why he has not finished it yet. He said you can start at the age of 25 but he said he can't be ordained until he is 35 according to the rules.

[Pearly Di]

Let me correct that statement, unfortunately for "the church" (I'm Catholic ) he got married which means he can't become a Catholic priest but he can be a deacon instead.

Oh, sure, I understood why. I guess I was just trying to ask whether the Catholic Church regards intentional celibacy as a higher spiritual calling than marriage.

Which would take us off-topic.

I apologize if deviated from the thread.

Goodness, no, you didn't.

I did.


Thanks for the reply.

[Primula Baggins]

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36

Interesting to see Jesus saying that he doesn't actually know. But the Father does. Makes wrapping your head around the concept of the Trinity extra fun. As usual.

The answer to this is that Jesus was human. While on Earth, he had human limitations. Not all of them; but he certainly wasn't omniscient. He could know only what a human brain could understand.

Although there are plenty of other things that make "wrapping your head around the concept of the Trinity" difficult even for people trained as theologians, which I certainly am not.

I'm enjoying the discussion of vocation, celibacy, and discernment, though I don't have anything to add to it!

[Frelga]

I'm enjoying the discussion of vocation, celibacy, and discernment, though I don't have anything to add to it!

Nor me, definitely not on celibacy.