Replies

The body of Christ is the church, not the Roman church which is referred to as Catholic. The Roman Church is much the same as the Synagogue of Satan in that the of the pharisees that the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked in the days of His ministry some 1500 years after the Laws of God were committed to Israel. These laws were corrupted by the very same people who considered themselves holy and scriptural but were in fact the children of hell.
this is the condition of the roman church that has forsaken the right ways of God and His doctrines for the doctrines of men that Jesus Himself condemned, they did not know Him at His first coming and they should have and therefore they sinned against God and crucified the only begotten Son of God and Israel has borne the double of His wrath for it.
Nevertheless, Israel will return to the land the second time, as they are, and will be restored to the right ways of God during the tribulation when the whole world will suffer the wrath of God for the rejection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. And the roman church are the pharisees of today and have rejected the Word of God as the only source of all truth and come under the doctrine of an apostate church.
Nevertheless, God will rapture the Body of Christ and most of the roman church will attend the local catholic denomination the next Sunday. The sin of amillenialism is a great heresy as they deny that the Israel of God will always be a nation as God states in Jeremiah. I wish that the Roman Church would return to the scriptures and stop worshiping men and Mary.
My Father is God because I believe how that Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose again the third day and forgave me all my sin by grace through faith as all my sin was laid upon Jesus the Christ at the cross and I was joined to those of Israel who worship God in Truth and in His Spirit.
Tradition has destroyed the roman church as God will prove when the Lord Jesus Christ will descend from the heavens with a shout and (1Thessalonians,chapter 4, verse 16.)

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

11. And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
12. That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.
13. But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The sin of amillenialism is a great heresy as they deny that the Israel of God will always be a nation as God states in Jeremiah. I wish that the Roman Church would return to the scriptures and stop worshiping men and Mary.

As Petronski pointed out, you do not understand the Catholic Church's relationship to Mary, the Mother of Christ Our Lord. We do not worship Mary, we honor Her, in imitation of Christ who, in keeping with the commandments, Honors His Mother. To denigrate the holy Mother is just as shameful as to worship her. Those in the Church who are not in heresy do not worship Mary, nor denigrate her. We honor (venerate) her. I don't know if you can take that in, but if not, at least it's for those looking over our shoulder, who might mistake your point to have validity, when in fact it is entirely without merit.

Secondly, the Catholic Church is far from rejecting the Word of God. Everything the Church does is entirely consistent with the Scriptures, and you can take that to the bank. Name a single Catholic doctrine that you believe is unscriptural, and you can be shown to be wrong by reference to scripture. I mean, think about it -- why would the Church accept a Bible canon that contradicts it's own teaching? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course not.

Third, I'm sorry to tell you, but your premillenial eschatology is a false doctrine that is based on a misreading of Scripture. You can read The Late Great Planet Earth all you want, but it is a false system of belief that is a distortion of God's word that is leading many men into error. Please be aware of the fact that it was not until the mid-19th century that premillenial theology was even clearly formulated. Think about that for a second. Except for a few people here or there, no sizable portion of Christians ever accepted premillenialism FOR OVER EIGHTEEN CENTURIES! And even today, it is almost exclusively confined to a radical fringe group of American Evangelical Christians. That insight should not be very comforting to you.

But don't believe me, take a look at your Bible. I invite you to take a look at one of several verses that demonstrates why premillenialism is in error. As pointed out by David Currie in Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, there is an important verse in St. Paul's letters that should give you much pause. I'm talking about Romans 11:17-26.

What you should notice about Romans 11:17-26 is the metaphor used by St. Paul to explain the plan of God throughout the ages. What is the metaphor? An olive tree. Yes, an olive tree. So, what's the big deal? Well, in the metaphor he is using, the original branches of the tree refer to the Jewish Israel, and these are said to have been cut off the tree. The new branches are understood to represent the church, and these are grafted into the root--the Israel of God.

With a moment's reflection, it should seem clear that, if premillenialism is true, the metaphor falls flat. Right? Think about it. If St. Paul was a premillenialist, he would have used a different analogy. He would have talked about first having the tree, representing the Jewish Israel, go dormant, and then he would have mentioned a second tree, the church, which springs to life and is later removed to heaven in the rapture, at which point the first tree, Jewish Isarel, would have been described as coming back to life again (the millennium). Paul couldn't possibly have had premillenial presuppositions in mind, or else he wouldn't have used the analogy of the olive tree as he in fact used it. St. Paul's metaphor, instead, validates amillenialism, because we have a part that is cut off, representing Jewish Israel, and a new branch, representing the church, grafted onto the original tree, which represents the Israel of God. That's the Catholic Church's teaching, and it fits.

Next, I invite you to take a look at Joel 2:28-32--a prediction about the events that will occur at the start of the Kingdom (millennium). This passage is quoted by St. Peter when he gave his first Christian sermon on the day of Pentecost. Remarkably, however. St. Peter is applying the verse from Joel 2 to the events that were occurring on that very day of Pentecost in which he was speaking! (Acts 2:14-41). St. Peter is telling us that the Kingdom of God had started. Since the birthday of the Curch is the beginning of the Kingdom, the millennium, the implication is obvious: The Church, the Kingdom and the millenium were all different ways of describing the same thing. St. Peter was an amillennialist, which is Catholic dogma!

I hope you do not wish to claim that St. Peter was mistaken or confused. He makes perfect sense, because look what happens after the Pentecost. In a single generation, the sacrifices of the Jewish leaders ceased. The Church, composed of both Jew and Gentile, had become the new Israel of God, working out his plan in the millennium. The structures of Israel were, for the most part, retained, but the leadership had been supplanted.

In addition, Matthew 16:18 refutes premillenialism. In this verse, Jesus uses the word ekklesia to describe the NT Church he promised to build on Peter: "On this rock I will build my church (ekklesia)." Now, at that time, the Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, and in the Septuagint the word ekklesia refers to the Hebrew qahal, which means "church." And this term, ekklesia, is the word at that time which was associated with the Old Convenant people of God. Jesus only used this word ekklesia three times in the Gospels. Each time it refers to the New Testament Church. The implication is clear: For Jesus, the Old Covenant chosen people were completed and fulfilled by the New Convenant chosen people of the Church. In the rest of the NT, the writers follow Christ's lead and use this same OT word to describe the Christian Church as well.

Jesus used the same word for Old Testament Israel and for the New Testament Church because he knew the Church would constitute the new Israel. She would fulfill the messianic prophecies and bring the fellowship of God beyond a holy bloodline to the whole human race. She would carry on the work of God throughout the world after "his own did not receive him" (Jn 1:121). This change in God's agenda would become obvious to everyone when the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. Jesus event predicted the destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24, Mk. 13).

So much for premillenialism.