John 18:36 says, > "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." If the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world, and he did not request his disciples to fight for his sake, does bodily welfare have anything to do with the Kingdom of God?

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

[This article]( https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html) presents a view that to be “born of water and the Spirit” refers to spiritual cleansing. The re-birth, or the new birth, which means to be “born again”, is a spiritual rebirth. Whereas people once-born have physical life, a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses promote full immersion in water for adults who understand the implications of baptism and what it signifies. From your New World Translation, John 3:5 and 7 says this: >Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… You people must be born again. It is worth noting that whereas Matthew and Luke refer to "the kingdom of God", Matthew uses the expression "the kingdom of heaven" 33 times. The kingdom of God is central to Jesus' teaching. From a Protestant perspective, we understand the two expressions to mean the same thing. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses who have submitted to water baptism deemed to have also been born from the Spirit, that they have been born again, or born from above, and are therefore confident of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Or is being “born again” restricted only to those members of the 144,000 who say they have been anointed and have a heavenly hope?

I have a question pertaining to Hebrews 12:22-23, which says: > “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the > heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels in joyful > assembly, to the congregation of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven. > You have come to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the > righteous made perfect.” Are the myriads of angels the “congregation of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” and the “spirits of the righteous made perfect”? Is this saying that the chosen of God become angels? Jesus said in Mark 12:25, > “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. > Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.” We see here that Jesus declares that we will be “like the angels”. Romans 8:19 says, > “The creation waits in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons > of God.” Here again, Paul said that the chosen of God are adopted as sons of God; a title shared by angels. Along with the belief that Jesus is the Chief Angel of God, and those who believe in him will become “just as he is” in glorified composition, does Hebrews 12:22-23 thus imply that believers become sons of God (angels) just as Jesus is the Son of God?

We often say or sing that Jesus is currently enthroned in heaven or seated on His throne in heaven. However, does Jesus instead teach that He won't sit on His throne before the Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:32)? Furthermore, don't the Scriptures teach that at present, rather than being on the throne, Jesus is "seated at **the right hand of the throne** of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1, NKJV, emphasis mine; cf. 12:2)? It seems as if He isn't seated on the throne even now but is rather seated *next to* the throne. Am I missing something? It does seem familiar to me that a verse exists describing Jesus as presently on a throne, but I can't recall where in the Bible, if anywhere, such is said. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus is on His throne now, or is that only a future event? **Note:** I am not looking for "Jesus is outside time anyway" answers, as this type of response distracts from the real issue. Regardless of whether Jesus may perform some acts outside of time, there are clearly events He's done within time, such as coming to the earth. Likewise, Christ's being seated at God's right hand also appears to be an event in time, for example, taking place after His ascension.

This question is based on four texts dealing with this matter. ***John 3:3*** where Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he **cannot see** the kingdom of God." ***John 6:40*** where Jesus promised that "every one which **seeth the Son**, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." ***John 20:29*** where Jesus said to Thomas, "Thomas, because thou **hast seen me**, thou hast believed; blessed are they that **have not seen**, and yet have believed." ***1 Peter 1:8***, speaking about believing Jesus, "Whom having **not seen**, ye love; in whom though now **ye see him not**, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." All from the A.V. and bold emphases mine. What kind of 'seeing' is this? It's clearly not seeing material things (like a literal kingdom on earth, or a person visible to our eyes.) Though people at first did literally see Jesus and believed in him, he spoke of those ***not seeing him, yet being begotten again***' with a heavenly inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-4). Only those who believe what Jesus said about being 'born again' as an adult (as he said to Nicodemus) are being asked, which effectively rules out many Christians who believe babies or little children are 'born again' when baptized as such. In other words, answers are not sought from those who equate membership in a religious organization with being born again and/or seeing the kingdom of God. **So, what kind of 'seeing' is this, and how is 'seeing Jesus' key to this?**

*I stumbled across the lack of belief, or comprehension, of this concept on another forum and it not only surprised me, I was completely blindsided by the response to the question; it was like I was defaming God by asking it.* Can you clarify: did Lucifer’s rebellion and wickedness (Leviticus 16:16-17) defile the Heavenly Sanctuary and even Heaven itself? I could not find a reference to this question when searching, and it almost seems to have been ignored because people ***do not*** seem to relate the rebellion of Lucifer in Heaven as a sin that could defile Gods throne, his Sanctuary, in heaven itself (even though Leviticus 16 clearly states that rebellion is sin!) > 16 In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 o one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, My understanding is that the earthly sanctuary and its services are a copy of the heavenly ones; they are representative of what happens in the heavenly ones. > According to Plato, the earthly priests were only serving in a shadowy copy of the heavenly sanctuary. This Platonic concept that the earthly is a shadow of the reality cf. Plato Resp. (http://ref.scielo.org/hh3svf) On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest placed his hands on the head of the goat Azazeel in order to transfer the burden onto the goat - is this not representative of Jesus doing the same to Lucifer, i.e. one day all responsibility and eventually punishment for sin will be enacted upon him? Based on the above fairly simple statements - I thought they are quite self evident interpretations actually - would I not be correct in making the assumption that: 1. Satan was the morning star, the covering cherub above the throne of God...he was next to God (although obviously, i believe lower than Jesus) 2. if Satan rebelled in heaven and fought against God and his angels, and in the context of the earthly sanctuary being representative of what occurred/occurs in heaven, then it is logical and consistent, with the earthly sanctuary model and its included services, for one to conclude that Satan's rebellion defiled the heavenly sanctuary; the Throne of God and indeed all of heaven? For those who don't believe in this idea, where was Satan when he rebelled against God? Do you believe this was not in heaven? Is Rebellion not sin?

>23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19, NIV](https://www.biblehub.com/niv/matthew/19.htm) A plain reading of this verse suggests that it is impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Are there any denominations or prominent theologians that believe that the rich cannot enter heaven or the kingdom of heaven? (Admittedly, what I call the "plain" reading appears to be an uncommon understanding of this verse—but I'm not asking about that here, since it has already been covered in [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14426) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24899).)

We read at Matthew 11:11 (NRSVCE): > "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." What exactly did Jesus mean by the above saying? Was He conveying that whatever the level of holiness one may achieve on earth, one needs to attain special grace to be a member of the kingdom of heaven? Are there any official teachings on Matthew 11:11 available from the perspective of the Catholic Church?

Let say for one reason or another, we have friends whom we've drifted apart from in our lives, and they also happen to be Christians. We're all going to meet each other in Heaven, but does the Bible say anything about our unresolved tensions and how we'll see each other from then on?

God says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the WORLD.” Why does God love the world so much? Or the induvial people in it? I find is vaccinating that God loves his people so much. Later in, it says, “That he gave his only son” In this part God sacrificed his only son for his people in the worse way possible death on the cross. So, God not only loves the “World” so much, but he sent his son to save it. After we ruin it by eating of the tree of Good & Evil… But not only did He just sacrifice himself He took the burden of every sin in all existent! After all that, it says, “Whomever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life” Does this mean we only have to believe in Jesus Christ/God to go to heaven? Also, after all we have done to God, He still loves us and even lets us go to heaven. Like man God is so loving and full of grace it’s remarkable. -Thank you for your time and please help answer the questions I asked or give a comment. God Bless.

This is just my speculation but would Jesus have established His millennial kingdom on Earth already IF the Jews, on a nationwide basis, accepted Him as their Lord and Saviour? > "So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to **get royal power for himself and then return.** 13 He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds,[a] and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ 14 But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘**We do not want this man to rule over us.**’ 15 When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. 16 The first came forward and said, ‘Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.’ 17 He said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ 18 Then the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’ 19 He said to him, ‘And you, rule over five cities.’ 20 Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’ 24 He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’ 25 (And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’) 26 ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’”- Luke 19:12-27 It seems pretty strange that a nobleman would go to some place to get power, only to go back where he came from. Was this due to his subject's contempt (in particular the Pharisees since these rebels sent a **delegation**) of this nobleman, which was further intensified in verse 14, even **AFTER** this nobleman declared his intention to leave this nation? And considering that Jesus was prophesised to be the ultimate atoning sacrifice for humanity, would the Jews have been willing to sacrifice Him? Or would God have the Romans do the dirty job?

In Luke 13:22-24 > 22 He passed through towns and villages, teaching as he went and > making his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a > few people be saved?” He answered them, 24 “Strive to enter through > the narrow door, for many, I tell you, **will attempt to enter** but will > not be strong enough. Source Now my question is this. What is the Catholic understanding of "will attempt to enter". Who are these people who attempt to enter heaven? And who are the people who are attempting but aren't strong enough? I would assume God would help them if they aren't strong enough. (They must be rejecting help) Normal understanding would be all practicing Christians. We all are attempting to be holy. Is it all Christians who can't overcome mortal sins in their life? Is Jesus talking about protestants or schismatics since they don't want to follow the narrow door of the Catholic teaching but still attempting to get into heaven?

I have been told by my LDS bishop not to fear losing family members forever. I know that the family is very important to Heavenly Father and his Son, but how important is it really? Will we get to visit our families in heaven if we are separated into different kingdoms, such as the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms? Will only people from the Celestial get to visit others, or could family members in the Telestial visit someone in the Celestial? I have always had the fear of losing family because we won't be able to visit each other in heaven. I have also had the fear that I might be the person to be in one of the lower kingdoms. I would like an answer based on LDS traditions and beliefs. I would also like to consider this question as to how could I answer it based on LDS beliefs if someone else asked me about it.

> Revelation 22:
(2) and flowing down the middle of the city's > street. On each side of the river was the tree of life, which bears > fruit twelve times a year, once each month; and its leaves are for the > healing of **the nations**. > > (3) Nothing that is under God's curse will be found in the city. The > throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and **his > servants** will worship him. > > (4) **They** will see his face, and his name will be written on > **their** foreheads. > > (5) There shall be no more night, and **they** will not need lamps or > sunlight, because the Lord God will be their light, and **they** will > rule as kings forever and ever As long as I understand (from reading the internet), it seems Revelation 22 is about a place (called heaven or kingdom of God) AFTER the Judgment Day. No more mortal human. Assuming that my understanding is correct, so the inhabitants of the heaven are all :
1. His servants (verse 3)
2. have His name on their foreheads and see His face (verse 4)
3. rule as kings forever and ever (verse 5) My questions are :
- are the inhabitants of heaven = the nations mentioned in verse 2 ?
- who are to be ruled and why ? are the inhabitants rule to each other ?
I realize that my questions are not valid if my understanding is not correct.

In Judaism there is the Kabbalah. In other religions there are ways to spiritual enlightenment. Every religion has its own formula. > From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48) > > I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11) > > was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:4) So are there levels of enlightenment in Christianity? If so, how do we get there? What is the Catholic Church's doctrine on this question?

I am **LDS** and had a discussion in Seminary the other day. Our Heavenly Father is all knowing, meaning he can see our past, present, and future. Let's say that according to Heavenly Father, I am not going to the Celestial Kingdom. He already knows that. How do we change what he already knows? I know it can change perspective for us, but how can we change it for him? **How do we Change our Determined fate based on what Heavenly Father already knows?** God knows the future of what the free-will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. Is this True? If he already knows everything though, how can it be that we make any different choices than what he already knows we will make?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. If the Kingdom of God is inside you (Luke 17:21), does this mean that one cannot have true inner peace with God unless he is baptized by both water and the Holy Spirit? And does this mean that a person cannot receive salvation into the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism in both water and the Spirit first?