Featured Does The RCC See faithful Jews/Muslims going to heaven?

That's sad. The RCC will surely be disappointed when Jesus comes again.

 

Didn't the OT believers look forward to the coming Kingdom which they knew they would be apart of?

 

No, actually I didn't following the principle that the book of Daniel contextually reveals what the prophesy of Daniel is about I made a simple comparison with in the context of the book of Daniel. In the kings dream he dreamt of 4 statues. Each statue according to Daniel who interpreted the dream represents a kingdom. Assuming that is so then the forth kingdom if it represents Rome which it seems to be the case. Then it stands to reason that the 4 beast represent the same four Kingdoms and the Fouth beast represents the same empire. Which a stone not made with human hands destroyed. Which can easily be compared to Christianity founded by God himself which brought down the Roman Empire. Daniel's prophesy is specifically about Jesus Christ and if you add up the weeks we come to Jesus and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. What I did do is put a problem for your rapture escatology. I bet you're pre-trib too aren't you? I use to believe in that view. In fact I use to Joke that on my way up I would grab a non-believer on my right and on my left and when I get half way up I would tell them to either believe in Jesus or I'll let go! But study of scripture has lead me away from that view.

 

Is that your way of saying that the OT saints didn't expect a kingdom of God to be instituted by the Messiah? I think scripturally you have problems with that.

Obviously you are not Amillenialist. I just want you to know Jesus will return once. Not half way for the rapture, then at the end of the reign of the anti-christ, and then for the millenial reign, and then go away, to only return once again to chain up satan and prepare the masses for the great white throne judgment.

 

ah! But he did say it was "at hand" which means here and now. And the Ecclessia surpasses the temporal but is eternal as well. You really should get away from your gnostic views.

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

It entirely is. Why don't you study up on it?

 

Sorry, but the kingdom of God is NOT the Church!

That is what Augustine taught. He helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. He was the father of amillennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God. You need to study it out from Scriptures w/o the assistance of Augustine of Hippo ( 354-430 A.D.)

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

There was never any church in the OT. The dispensation of churches started with Pentecost. There wasn't any church before that. The apostle Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. There was no such activity with Israel. To think such a concept existed in the OT is delusional at best.

Every epistle that Paul ever wrote was either to a local church or to a pastor of local church. There are seven letters in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. They are all written to the angel (messengers or pastors) of seven existing or historical churches that existed at the time of Christ. The local church was God's ordained institution and still is. He ordained the family unit; He ordained government; He ordained the local church. These are the God-ordained institutions that God works through. To work against any one of these is to work against God.

 

It is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of what does the Scripture say? What was the intent and purpose of Nicodemus? Why did he come, and why did Jesus say what he did?

The words: "You must be born again" is not a paraphrase.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
--I accept the Word of God for what it says.

He was interested in what Jesus had to say. He wasn't born again. Thus the obvious instruction of Jesus: "You must be born again." Jesus is no fool. He does not give advice for those who know it already.

No need to paraphrase. You have taken Scripture out of context. The verse you just used:

Mark 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

This is the only time it is used, and Jesus is answering a scribe, not Nicodemus. It has nothing to do with this conversation. Why are you inserting it into this conversation.

Jesus plainly told him: "You must be born again" (John 3:3).

That is not what Jesus said. You are making things up. Nicodemus had no clue what it meant "to be born again," and thus no clue how he could enter the kingdom God. This is what Jesus said. Christ's words are more accurate than your opinion.

No, I often use the word "we" in conversation even though I am the only one there. You do the same. It is "we" as referring to Baptists, or non-Cals, or dispensationalists, etc. To Nicodemus the "we" may have referred to the Sanhedrin, the Jews as a whole, or more probably those that had seen and heard the miracles that he did. The context indicates a conversation that there was a conversation between one man and Christ. The opening verses says the same.
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night...
--A conversation between Christ and Nicodemus and that is all.

Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin. Follow his activities through the Gospel. He did not become a believer in Christ until much later. He was not born again. He was confused and his answer shows it. In fact his answer indicates a belief somewhat similar to the prevailing belief in incarnation by other religions in the area.

Yes, that is why Jesus had to correct his confused answer given in verse 4, in the following verses.

That is what he said. In fact he told Nicodemus three times that he must be born again.

A matter of perspective.
On Saturday morning my child comes into the living room and wants to watch TV. He says to me: "I want to watch TV" I reply, "Unless you turn on the power you cannot see the picture." It is a terse way of putting things, but nevertheless true. It is instructional. This is what Jesus was doing. He was making an obvious statement of instructional value. It was just as good as a command in its value.

That was the stated truth. And Nicodemus was not born again, and therefore he needed to do something about it!

No, it indicates he was confused. One cannot get to heaven through some odd way like reincarnation, he must be born from above--through the work of the Holy Spirit, as He works through the Word of God. That is what Nicodemus needed to understand, but didn't.

It really doesn't matter. Both translations are acceptable.

I assure you this was no enemy of Christ:[/quote]
You err not knowing the Scriptures. Every person that enters into this world is an enemy of God. They have a depraved nature. Thus the necessity of being born again, being born into God's family, and becoming a child of God. Nicodemus was no exception to the rule. Do you honestly think that Nicodemus had an "immaculate conception." I didn't know you were Catholic? What happened to the depravity of man? This man was not converted. He was not born again.

Non sequitor.
This is many months after Nicodemus's initial encounter with Jesus. He eventually became born again, but not on his first encounter with Jesus. He did not go back and leave the Sanhedrin. He remained in that wicked organization with the plans to kill Jesus. He did not defend Jesus as the Messiah. He showed no evidence as a believer, until much later on in his life. He lived "in fear of the Jews." The other disciples did not.

 

The Amillenial view goes back to the first century. Ireneaus also speaks of it.

 

And that is the problem with the dispensationalism. God deals with people in covenants not on dispensations.

 

Basically, from what I have read and those I have talked to in the RCC, they think that anyone not a member of their One True Church are lost. It does not matter to them whether they are Muslim, Jews, or Protestants. Our local church certainly does not believe all Catholics are lost.

What amazes me is that an organization that has such a warped theology in numerous areas pictures itself as the true church founded by Jesus Christ. What is even more amazing is the number of people who believe their garbage.

 

All over the bible. Try genesis for abraham. Try Exodus for Moses and the Israelites? Try Deuteronomy for the second giving of the covenant. Try Joshua where once again its applied. Try the end of 1st Kings as the covenant is fulfilled though negatively. Try the New Testiment which actually means New Covenant. In fact, God deals with his people covenentally all over the bible in every book.