-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?
- Thread starter Carson Weber
- Start date
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Bob,
Well Carson is being "silent as the tomb"
Only as silent as your evasiveness, Bob. Are you going to answer my simple, straightforward question or not?
If Jesus wasn't lying, then in some way, he came with his kingdom in his contemporaneous generation. If Jesus didn't, as he said he would, then he's lying?
Which is it?
Well Carson is being "silent as the tomb"
Only as silent as your evasiveness, Bob. Are you going to answer my simple, straightforward question or not?
If Jesus wasn't lying, then in some way, he came with his kingdom in his contemporaneous generation. If Jesus didn't, as he said he would, then he's lying?
Which is it?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Jesus "in some way came in His Kingdom" in the form of the Matt 17 transfiguration where He appears glorified with both the saints translated and the saints resurrected represented.
The first in the form of Elijah and the second in the form of Moses.
The author of the text in Matt places this prediction and the immediate answer to that prediction back to back.
Inventing a 70AD second coming is much more of a reach.
However to be more direct, LaRae is saying that nothing in Catholic doctrine requires your 70AD return of Christ idea.
I would settle for just having you set the record straight - is the 70AD return of Christ "official Catholic doctrine" or is it just an idea that you and Brother Ed are kicking around?
In Christ,
Bob
The first in the form of Elijah and the second in the form of Moses.
The author of the text in Matt places this prediction and the immediate answer to that prediction back to back.
Inventing a 70AD second coming is much more of a reach.
However to be more direct, LaRae is saying that nothing in Catholic doctrine requires your 70AD return of Christ idea.
I would settle for just having you set the record straight - is the 70AD return of Christ "official Catholic doctrine" or is it just an idea that you and Brother Ed are kicking around?
In Christ,
Bob
Ray Berrian
New Member
We are more than well aware and convinced that Roman Catholic's tradition passed on by the popes stands well higher than merely the Bible and Jesus words of truth for all of His church.
One would have thought that the Greek word for Peter {Petros} was only valid in Matthew 16:18. A brief referencing of Peter's name indicates as noted in Dr. Strong's Concordance on page 787 that his name is referred to 162 times in the New Testament.
The distinction is that Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 only that 'thou art Peter' {Petros}and that in the next verse he was given the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
God is building His glorious church not on the memory of a sinner saved by the grace of Christ but it is rather being built during 'the times of the Gentiles' right now on the foundation [I Cor. 3:11] and 'chief cornerstone' [I Peter 2:6] Who was elected before the foundation of the world for our Redemption and eternal salvation. [Ephesians 1:4] If God was building His church on Peter, I am more than sure, that Peter would have re-emphasized this truth in one of his two general epistles. Search until Purgatory beckons to you but you will not find it in his epistles. Oh, but what Peter does elevate to us is that Christ is our 'Chief cornerstone' in I Peter 1:6. Peter does not take time to elevate his own importance in the spiritual kingdom of God any more than John the Baptist [John 1:27] did in the interim between the old covenant and the new and better covenant. [Heb. 8:6]
The Roman Catholic Church has tried to prop up her theology by only using Matt. 16:18 while ignoring all of the other old and new testament references to Christ being the foundation and Head of His own church as I duly documented in my post on June 14 at 9:06 p.m. And on top of this error the virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord, is included in the mix, with her alleged ministry being co-redemptrix with Christ.
If the progression of the Apostolic Bishopric was to be passed on from Peter to the next papal chair, it seems more than evident to us that it would have at least been footnoted in one verse of the Bible.
Obviously, we are not reckless in saying that Peter and Mary had no place in the ongoing of the church with their blessings that reach even to us. If we are faithful to Christ we too will be recognized at the Judgment Seat of Christ for our labor of love, whether we are a priest, Catholic laity, minister or other Christian lay persons.
King David who was of the lineage that down the line in time produced Jesus through Mary has something to say about who is the Rock of our salvation. I am still waiting your exegesis of these verses. [Psalm 61:2; 78:35; 92:15; 94:22; and 95:1] They will not point to us that Peter is the foundation of our hope of Heaven. Just because you are spiritually confused about Matthew 16:18 does not mean that you can 'blow off' these spiritual expressions of Divine truth. For example, God speaking through the prophet David did not say in Psalm 92:15, 'To show that Peter is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.'
One would have thought that the Greek word for Peter {Petros} was only valid in Matthew 16:18. A brief referencing of Peter's name indicates as noted in Dr. Strong's Concordance on page 787 that his name is referred to 162 times in the New Testament.
The distinction is that Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 only that 'thou art Peter' {Petros}and that in the next verse he was given the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
God is building His glorious church not on the memory of a sinner saved by the grace of Christ but it is rather being built during 'the times of the Gentiles' right now on the foundation [I Cor. 3:11] and 'chief cornerstone' [I Peter 2:6] Who was elected before the foundation of the world for our Redemption and eternal salvation. [Ephesians 1:4] If God was building His church on Peter, I am more than sure, that Peter would have re-emphasized this truth in one of his two general epistles. Search until Purgatory beckons to you but you will not find it in his epistles. Oh, but what Peter does elevate to us is that Christ is our 'Chief cornerstone' in I Peter 1:6. Peter does not take time to elevate his own importance in the spiritual kingdom of God any more than John the Baptist [John 1:27] did in the interim between the old covenant and the new and better covenant. [Heb. 8:6]
The Roman Catholic Church has tried to prop up her theology by only using Matt. 16:18 while ignoring all of the other old and new testament references to Christ being the foundation and Head of His own church as I duly documented in my post on June 14 at 9:06 p.m. And on top of this error the virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord, is included in the mix, with her alleged ministry being co-redemptrix with Christ.
If the progression of the Apostolic Bishopric was to be passed on from Peter to the next papal chair, it seems more than evident to us that it would have at least been footnoted in one verse of the Bible.
Obviously, we are not reckless in saying that Peter and Mary had no place in the ongoing of the church with their blessings that reach even to us. If we are faithful to Christ we too will be recognized at the Judgment Seat of Christ for our labor of love, whether we are a priest, Catholic laity, minister or other Christian lay persons.
King David who was of the lineage that down the line in time produced Jesus through Mary has something to say about who is the Rock of our salvation. I am still waiting your exegesis of these verses. [Psalm 61:2; 78:35; 92:15; 94:22; and 95:1] They will not point to us that Peter is the foundation of our hope of Heaven. Just because you are spiritually confused about Matthew 16:18 does not mean that you can 'blow off' these spiritual expressions of Divine truth. For example, God speaking through the prophet David did not say in Psalm 92:15, 'To show that Peter is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.'
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Bob,
You wrote, "Jesus "in some way came in His Kingdom" in the form of the Matt 17 transfiguration"
I was beginning to think that you wouldn't answer my question. Thank you for your answer.
However, there is one slight problem with what you propose.
Later in the same Gospel (Matthew), we read this (24:3):
"As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, "Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Jesus' reply is lengthy. You should read it. It entails the beginning of calamities, the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of Man (much more than what we find at the Transfiguration, and this discourse occurs much later than the Transfiguration). And, within it, Jesus says, "Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" (24:34).
Nice try though.
So, my question remains unanswered, as your initial answer is untenable.
[ June 16, 2003, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "Jesus "in some way came in His Kingdom" in the form of the Matt 17 transfiguration"
I was beginning to think that you wouldn't answer my question. Thank you for your answer.
However, there is one slight problem with what you propose.
Later in the same Gospel (Matthew), we read this (24:3):
"As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, "Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Jesus' reply is lengthy. You should read it. It entails the beginning of calamities, the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of Man (much more than what we find at the Transfiguration, and this discourse occurs much later than the Transfiguration). And, within it, Jesus says, "Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" (24:34).
Nice try though.
So, my question remains unanswered, as your initial answer is untenable.
[ June 16, 2003, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Ray,
You've repeated your thesis that Peter isn't the rock of Matthew 16:16-19 without addressing my rebuttal above.
You wrote, "The Roman Catholic Church has tried to prop up her theology by only using Matt. 16:18 while ignoring all of the other old and new testament references to Christ being the foundation and Head of His own church."
I would be careful not to bear false witness to your Catholic brothers and sisters, Ray.
The Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
792. "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church.' (Col 1:18). He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, 'in everything he (is) preeminent,' (Col 1:18) especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things."
who is the Rock of our salvation. I am still waiting your exegesis of these verses. (Psalm 61:2; 78:35; 92:15; 94:22; and 95:1)
Jesus is the rock of our salvation. I've never and I never will deny this simple dogma of the Catholic Church.
You're creating a straw man, Ray. I don't believe and confess what you're making me out to believe and confess. This is what we call false witness, and it's quite uncharitable if you ask me, brother. It's also a sin.
You've repeated your thesis that Peter isn't the rock of Matthew 16:16-19 without addressing my rebuttal above.
You wrote, "The Roman Catholic Church has tried to prop up her theology by only using Matt. 16:18 while ignoring all of the other old and new testament references to Christ being the foundation and Head of His own church."
I would be careful not to bear false witness to your Catholic brothers and sisters, Ray.
The Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
792. "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church.' (Col 1:18). He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, 'in everything he (is) preeminent,' (Col 1:18) especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things."
who is the Rock of our salvation. I am still waiting your exegesis of these verses. (Psalm 61:2; 78:35; 92:15; 94:22; and 95:1)
Jesus is the rock of our salvation. I've never and I never will deny this simple dogma of the Catholic Church.
You're creating a straw man, Ray. I don't believe and confess what you're making me out to believe and confess. This is what we call false witness, and it's quite uncharitable if you ask me, brother. It's also a sin.
neal4christ
New Member
Carson,
You make some good points, but I have some questions for you. Now I have not really studied this in depth or thought on it long, but your belief (if you really hold it) that Christ returned in 70 A.D. seems shaky as well. These questions are asked assuming that you hold to the 70 A.D. date.
1. Did many come in just 40 years and claim "I am the Christ?"
2. Did many turn away from the faith in those 40 years and betray and hate each other?
3. Did many false prophets appear and deceive many with great signs and miracles?
4. Was the gospel of the kingdom preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations?
5. Did the sun darken, the moon's light fail, and the stars fall?
6. Was Christ's coming visible all over like lightning?
7. Did the Son of Man appear in the sky and did all nations mourn? Did they see His coming?
8. Were the elect gathered from the four winds?
9. Was there a loud trumpet call?
10. Isn't it possible that 'generation' in verse 34 could mean something more along the lines of
'race' or 'posterity'?
If you do not hold to the 70 A.D. date I apologize. If you do, I would appreciate your input. Like I said, I haven't studied this passage in depth yet, but those questions are just a few that jump out to me when I think of your position. Also, is your belief church doctrine or your interpretation?
Thanks,
Neal
Hi Bob!
You asked Carson again this question:
On Matthew 16:28, which says:
"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Catholic NAB)
The footnotes in my bible have this comment:
"Coming in his kingdom: since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as "The World" (13:38-41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding, but the manifestation of Jesus' rule after his resurrection..." (italics in the original.)
I see no reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But then that particular event may have signalled the "coming out" of Christianity and the teachings of Christ, which for all the world, is Christ's coming.
As of now, I know of not particular teaching of the Catholic Church concerning this particular fragment of scripture...
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18
You asked Carson again this question:
I have not followed Carson's discussion on this much but I am kind of interested in it.
On Matthew 16:28, which says:
"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Catholic NAB)
The footnotes in my bible have this comment:
"Coming in his kingdom: since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as "The World" (13:38-41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding, but the manifestation of Jesus' rule after his resurrection..." (italics in the original.)
I see no reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But then that particular event may have signalled the "coming out" of Christianity and the teachings of Christ, which for all the world, is Christ's coming.
As of now, I know of not particular teaching of the Catholic Church concerning this particular fragment of scripture...
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18
RaptureReady
New Member
Your bible may say "end of age," but my bible says "end of world." That age has ended, but the world has not. (yet)
P.S. If Jesus did return in 70AD, why?
neal4christ
New Member
Sorry, Homebound, but age is the correct translation, not world. I do not agree with Carson's position, but that translation is right. Of course, all this is for the version forum.
Let us rightly divide the word of truth, but let us first understand what that word is saying.Neal
Ray Berrian
New Member
Carson Weber,
The Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
792. "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church.' (Col 1:18). He is the
principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, 'in
everything he (is) preeminent,' (Col 1:18) especially in the Church, through
whom he extends his reign over all things."
I think we all like to read this official statement that is in the catechism, at least I do. Perhaps we are closer together than I think. You do create for us a problem when you emphasize so much of your mass with references to Mary plus the reemphasis through the use of the Rosery.
Then we get more and more of the ex cathedras from the popes announcing new truth coming from their office, that we cannot remotely find in God's Word the Bible.
Do you see our dilemma?
The Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
792. "Christ 'is the head of the body, the Church.' (Col 1:18). He is the
principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, 'in
everything he (is) preeminent,' (Col 1:18) especially in the Church, through
whom he extends his reign over all things."
I think we all like to read this official statement that is in the catechism, at least I do. Perhaps we are closer together than I think. You do create for us a problem when you emphasize so much of your mass with references to Mary plus the reemphasis through the use of the Rosery.
Then we get more and more of the ex cathedras from the popes announcing new truth coming from their office, that we cannot remotely find in God's Word the Bible.
Do you see our dilemma?
RaptureReady
New Member
Sorry, Homebound, but age is the correct translation, not world. I do not agree with Carson's position, but that translation is right. Of course, all this is for the version forum.
Let us rightly divide the word of truth, but let us first understand what that word is saying.Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, neal4christ, but world is the correct translation, not age. I do not agree with Carson's and your position either, you alls translation is wrong. Of course, all this is for the version forum.
Let us rightly divide the word of truth, but let us first understand what that word is saying. To the version forum we go then.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Neal,
I have yet to study the history of the Fall of Jerusalem as in-depth as I want to, but here is something interesting to note. There were more than a dozen Messianic movements in the same generation as Christ, and Josephus records of supernatural phenomenon occurring in the sky during the Fall of Jerusalem.
In Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3:5:3), we read that the Christians of Jerusalem fled from that city to Pella, a city of Transjordan, at the time of the First Jewish Revolt. He attributes the flight to "a certain oracle given by revelation before the war".
Also, is your belief church doctrine or your interpretation?
To the best of my knowledge, the Church doesn't have an official "interpretation" of these passages. However, it is Church doctrine that Jesus has yet to come finally in his Second Coming, which of course, I believe. I don't believe that Jesus came physically, that we've experienced the rapture, that we've all been physically resurrected, and that the End of the World has come. That's ridiculous, of course. If I did believe that, we wouldn't be sitting here, would we?
This isn't my interpretation. It's one that I've learned in my graduate program that I find to suit the text (i.e., it doesn't make Jesus out to be a liar); it's quite challenging, incredibly interesting, and it gives better explanatory power to immanent eschatology by taking into account the fact that Jesus says "this generation [genea] will not pass away until all these things have taken place". A generation is traditionally 40 years, and if we add 40 to the year Jesus was making these statements, we come up with the time of the Fall of Jerusalem.
Catholics have this sort of interpretive freedom; you nor anyone else should be surprised at the fact that the Church empowers us to read the Bible safely (e.g. I'm not led to the conclusion that there is no future Second Coming), with the freedom to really dig deep into Scripture, mining its riches.
[ June 16, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
I have yet to study the history of the Fall of Jerusalem as in-depth as I want to, but here is something interesting to note. There were more than a dozen Messianic movements in the same generation as Christ, and Josephus records of supernatural phenomenon occurring in the sky during the Fall of Jerusalem.
In Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3:5:3), we read that the Christians of Jerusalem fled from that city to Pella, a city of Transjordan, at the time of the First Jewish Revolt. He attributes the flight to "a certain oracle given by revelation before the war".
Also, is your belief church doctrine or your interpretation?
To the best of my knowledge, the Church doesn't have an official "interpretation" of these passages. However, it is Church doctrine that Jesus has yet to come finally in his Second Coming, which of course, I believe. I don't believe that Jesus came physically, that we've experienced the rapture, that we've all been physically resurrected, and that the End of the World has come. That's ridiculous, of course. If I did believe that, we wouldn't be sitting here, would we?
This isn't my interpretation. It's one that I've learned in my graduate program that I find to suit the text (i.e., it doesn't make Jesus out to be a liar); it's quite challenging, incredibly interesting, and it gives better explanatory power to immanent eschatology by taking into account the fact that Jesus says "this generation [genea] will not pass away until all these things have taken place". A generation is traditionally 40 years, and if we add 40 to the year Jesus was making these statements, we come up with the time of the Fall of Jerusalem.
Catholics have this sort of interpretive freedom; you nor anyone else should be surprised at the fact that the Church empowers us to read the Bible safely (e.g. I'm not led to the conclusion that there is no future Second Coming), with the freedom to really dig deep into Scripture, mining its riches.
[ June 16, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
neal4christ
New Member
Thanks for your input, Carson.
Neal
Neal
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Anything that's in the Bible is all of the sudden about Mary and how we ought to worship her. Anything that disproves Catholicism is all of the sudden an infallible proof of it. Yeah, the Catholic interprets more freely than anyone (except Baptists). That's why they're never covincted of the truth - they just reinterpret it to fit Catholicism. The Baptists are always dodging baptism with sophistries and the Catholics dodging Mt 23:9 and a host of other passages with the same tricks - tricks are for kids! Both groups need to grow up and find a real church.
Anything that's in the Bible is all of the sudden about Mary and how we ought to worship her. Anything that disproves Catholicism is all of the sudden an infallible proof of it. Yeah, the Catholic interprets more freely than anyone (except Baptists). That's why they're never covincted of the truth - they just reinterpret it to fit Catholicism. The Baptists are always dodging baptism with sophistries and the Catholics dodging Mt 23:9 and a host of other passages with the same tricks - tricks are for kids! Both groups need to grow up and find a real church. </font>[/QUOTE]What was it now that Carson said:
Catholics have this sort of interpretive freedom; you nor anyone else should be surprised at the fact that the Church empowers us to read the Bible safely (e.g. I'm not led to the conclusion that there is no future Second Coming), with the freedom to really dig deep into Scripture, mining its riches.
From under what rock do you derive this from Carson's statement, sir?
But I would assure you, if there is any "agent" that is most appropriate to interpret scriptures, it is certainly the only church that did indeed, collate, canonize, and declare as divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture!
Sola, you are simply jealous!
Your church cannot do the things my church has done to bring the very scriptures you hold in your hot little hands that you, from all places, make an argument against the very church who preserved it for you!
Have you ever considered the precarious limb you stand on, long since sawed-off, with you and your particular Christian community falling with it into abject error and confusion?
Nah! I gotta be nice to you!
After all, you are a child of God who may very well enjoy greater riches before the Lord then I!
God bless.
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Why would I be jealous of the whore of Babylon? I don't want to burn in the lake of fire.
(1 Tim 4:1-3) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; {2} Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; {3} Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I know you'll try to freely interpret your way out of that one, and many feeble minded folks may be fooled by your silver-tongued explanation, but God is not mocked, and Christ will come in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Th 1:8)
(1 Tim 4:1-3) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; {2} Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; {3} Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I know you'll try to freely interpret your way out of that one, and many feeble minded folks may be fooled by your silver-tongued explanation, but God is not mocked, and Christ will come in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Th 1:8)
Ray Berrian
New Member
Don't color in angel wings to your church; your branch of the church deprived the laity during the Dark and Middle Ages. Priest chained the Bible to the pulpit because the regular Christian was too dumb to interpret the Word of God.
We received from your church a lot of wrong translations do to the church's proclivity toward the Latin rather than the Greek text.
We too, have a canon that has eliminated some books of the Bible that you have, because our fathers of the faith had seen conflicting ideas that disagreed with the rest of our holy book, the Bible. That's why you end up with the alleged purgatory and we believe in the Judgment Seat of Christ, [II Corinthians 5:10 & Romans 14:10] which you and I will have to stand before, at a future time, before we enter Heaven.
If it were not for the Reformation fathers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox we would still be sitting in the shadows of relative spiritual darkness, trying to figure out how long our stay in purgatory might be.
We received from your church a lot of wrong translations do to the church's proclivity toward the Latin rather than the Greek text.
We too, have a canon that has eliminated some books of the Bible that you have, because our fathers of the faith had seen conflicting ideas that disagreed with the rest of our holy book, the Bible. That's why you end up with the alleged purgatory and we believe in the Judgment Seat of Christ, [II Corinthians 5:10 & Romans 14:10] which you and I will have to stand before, at a future time, before we enter Heaven.
If it were not for the Reformation fathers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox we would still be sitting in the shadows of relative spiritual darkness, trying to figure out how long our stay in purgatory might be.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Thanks Bill.
I am not saying I am objecting in any way to Carson and Ed doing a little freelance thinking - I am all for it even though I don't happen to agree with them (gasp! surprise!)
on this point.But I did not want to report this to someone else as "a recent teaching of the RCC" if in fact it is just a few individuals kicking an idea around.
As for Matt 16 and "The Son of Man is going to come in the GLORY of His Father with His Angels and WILL THEN Recompense EVERY MAN according to his deeds" - it matches prettly close to the same idea in Rev 19 and 20 and in 2Thess 1 where He is also seen to be "dealing out retribution" as He comes "in flaming fire".
As for "The Son of man coming in His kingdom" vs 28 - recall the Luke 23 statement of the thief on the cross "Remember me WHEN you come into your Kingdom". Christ's reponse is direct and not a "trick resonpse" and it shows that entering with him as a resurrected saint into Paradise is connected with that coming into His Kingdom.
"Truly I say to you today you SHALL be with Me in Paradise".
In Christ,
Bob