truth of the "rapture"

[seeking Christ]

While Christians of the first century understood the ancient symbols, the Romans were unable to decipher the bizarre imagery. Christians knew that the writer was dealing with ideas that ordinary language could not describe. They did not dwell on the symbols but passed through them to the underlying reality.

Ahhh, read the Bible, it gives you wiiings

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ahhh, read the Bible, it gives you wiiings

You're posts prove that reading the bible is not enough .....

 

[seeking Christ]

Yeah, forget the red bull and go for the red heifer

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yeah, forget the red bull and go for the red heifer

sigh .....

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No such thing as a type or figure now? This makes it hard to justify inclusion of Enoch and Elijah's translation in Scripture

Yeah Elijah was identified by Jesus as John the baptizer of whom was the end of the old era .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Whenever a pope speaks to the whole church as its pastor and with the intention of speaking infallibly on doctrine or morals then what he says is true and, of course, what is true does not contradict the truth of scripture. So, what happens when a pope says something that is not true and something that contradicts scripture, nobody is obligated to believe or obey what he says.

You know, I hope, that popes are not sinless, don't you? You ought to know that Popes are not infallible, only specific things that they write or say 'ex cathedra' are infallible.

A pope is not personally infallible. If, in his personal teaching he errs, there is no obligation to follow.

People seem to think that everything the Pope says is infallible. In actuallity, the charism has rarely been needed, and no Pope has taught under the charism of infallibility anything different than the Deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The one time on record where that was actually attempted, the Pope was taken mortally ill the night before his planned pronouncement and it was never given.

The Holy Spirit uses the charism to protect the deposit of faith and protects the charism as well.

Thank you

 

[Stryder06]

Absolutely it does make them figurative. That's the whole point.

According to who? And if you're going to appeal to your church, how does it know?

 

[thereselittleflower]

According to who? And if you're going to appeal to your church, how does it know?

Scholars who understand what the genre is. Look maybe it would be good for you to take some time and educate yourself on the various genres found in the bible.

This is not rocket science. It is established fact.

 

[Stryder06]

Well where your prophetess got her inspiration from, like about the giants who inhabit Jupiter, is a subject for another thread.

Another thread indeed, espically since she never said Jupiter

But the fact of the matter is, you reject a common sense approach to Revelation which would acknowlege the facts of its genre, and all that means, and you do so because of what you have adpoted to guide you in interpreting scripture. If you choose the wrong guide, that doesnt' change the genre a book is written in, and doesn't change the fact that Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre any more than that changes the fact that the Song of Solomon is of the poetic genre.

I'm not rejecting that Revelation is an apocalytpic book. I know that fully well. It's full of symbolism to be sure, but not all of it is symbolic. Blessed are they who read and those who hear the words of the prophecy of this book. We're supposed to understand it. God didn't give this Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, just for us to say "Oh it's a nice story".

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, how is Ellen White different than Joseph Smith?

Forgive me but I didn't join in on this discussion to discuss EGW, and something tells me there's nothing I can't tell you that you haven't already heard.

 

[Stryder06]

Scholars who understand what the genre is. Look maybe it would be good for you to take some time and educate yourself on the various genres found in the bible.

This is not rocket science. It is established fact.

Spritual things are spritually discerned. Forgive me but I don't put much stock into the words of men when they seek to take away from the Word of God.

 

[Stryder06]

Well done! It's about time you noticed that there's a difference between infallibility and inspiration! The pity is that Ellen White didn't know that there was a difference .... and it looks like you approve of her claims to the gift of prophetic inspiration. So, when are you going to glue her inspired writings into your bible?

I don't recall stating that I didn't know the difference between the two. What's really sad is that I've yet to hear how any of your Popes received Revelation from God. It's sad really. I'd think they'd be the first ones to get a vision every now and then.

 

[Stryder06]

Sorry, but you're simply mistaken.

How would you know I'm mistaken if you don't know what the bible says on the matter?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well done! It's about time you noticed that there's a difference between infallibility and inspiration! The pity is that Ellen White didn't know that there was a difference .... and it looks like you approve of her claims to the gift of prophetic inspiration. So, when are you going to glue her inspired writings into your bible?

I don't recall stating that I didn't know the difference between the two. What's really sad is that I've yet to hear how any of your Popes received Revelation from God. It's sad really. I'd think they'd be the first ones to get a vision every now and then.

Well Stryder06, it is evident, from what you write, that you do not understand the difference between an infallible statement and an inspired statement. So you need not say that you do not know the difference to make it clear that you do not. Therefore let us try once more to make the difference clear:

1. An infallible statement is a true statement but not normally a new revelation received from God.
2. An inspired statement is always an infallible statement but an inspired statement is revelation from God. In our times inspired revelation is limited to scripture.

So naturally, no popes, saint Peter alone excepted, receive revelation from God; their gift of infallibility extends only to making true statements when questions of doctrine and morals are answered ex cathedra.

 

[Stryder06]

Well Stryder06, it is evident, from what you write, that you do not understand the difference between an infallible statement and an inspired statement. So you need not say that you do not know the difference to make it clear that you do not. Therefore let us try once more to make the difference clear:

1. An infallible statement is a true statement but not normally a new revelation received from God.
2. An inspired statement is always an infallible statement but an inspired statement is revelation from God. In our times inspired revelation is limited to scripture.

So naturally, no popes, saint Peter alone excepted, receive revelation from God; their gift of infallibility extends only to making true statements when questions of doctrine and morals are answered ex cathedra.

Actually MoreCoffee, I have a clear understanding of the two thanks to my time on this board, and made no such statement here that indicated anything to the contrary. I am not responsible for what you assume I mean when I said that your Popes should receive a vision every now and then. I do find it strage however that they NEVER received inspiration.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't recall stating that I didn't know the difference between the two. What's really sad is that I've yet to hear how any of your Popes received Revelation from God. It's sad really. I'd think they'd be the first ones to get a vision every now and then.

Well Stryder06, it is evident, from what you write, that you do not understand the difference between an infallible statement and an inspired statement. So you need not say that you do not know the difference to make it clear that you do not. Therefore let us try once more to make the difference clear:

1. An infallible statement is a true statement but not normally a new revelation received from God.
2. An inspired statement is always an infallible statement but an inspired statement is revelation from God. In our times inspired revelation is limited to scripture.

So naturally, no popes, saint Peter alone excepted, receive revelation from God; their gift of infallibility extends only to making true statements when questions of doctrine and morals are answered ex cathedra.

Actually MoreCoffee, I have a clear understanding of the two thanks to my time on this board, and made no such statement here that indicated anything to the contrary. I am not responsible for what you assume I mean when I said that your Popes should receive a vision every now and then. I do find it strage however that they NEVER received inspiration.

If you understand the difference then why did you ask about popes receiving revelation from God? clearly the gift of infallibility does not involve revelation from God it is about assurance of truth not reception of revelation.

You asked "I've yet to hear how any of your Popes received Revelation from God" but that question in and of itself makes it evident that you do not understand that the gift of infallibility does not mean a gift of revelation from God. You also say "I do find it strange however that they NEVER received inspiration" which in and of itself makes it clear that you do not understand that inspiration is the gift that creates sacred scripture.

 

[Stryder06]

If you understand the difference then why did you ask about popes receiving revelation from God? clearly the gift of infallibility does not involve revelation from God it is about assurance of truth not reception of revelation.

You asked "I've yet to hear how any of your Popes received Revelation from God" but that question in and of itself makes it evident that you do not understand that the gift of infallibility does not mean a gift of revelation from God.

That wasn't a question. It was a statement. I stated an observation that I've made after having asked before. I've been told that NO POPE has EVER received Visions/Revelations from God. That strikes me as odd. I never mentioned infallibility. I do believe that occurs when the Pope speaks ex cathedra correct?

I don't need to argue that because it's been explained to me already. You like to rally on about visions Sr White received, and that's whatever as far as I'm concerned. What strikes me as odd, is how you don't think it's problematic that NOT A SINGLE POPE, has EVER had a vision from God. Not a one. Not a single solitary one. If I were you I'd be less concerned about Ellen's visions, and more concerned with the lack thereof among your Popes.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That wasn't a question. It was a statement. I stated an observation that I've made after having asked before. I've been told that NO POPE has EVER received Visions/Revelations from God. That strikes me as odd. I never mentioned infallibility. I do believe that occurs when the Pope speaks ex cathedra correct?

I don't need to argue that because it's been explained to me already. You like to rally on about visions Sr White received, and that's whatever as far as I'm concerned. What strikes me as odd, is how you don't think it's problematic that NOT A SINGLE POPE, has EVER had a vision from God. Not a one. Not a single solitary one. If I were you I'd be less concerned about Ellen's visions, and more concerned with the lack thereof among your Popes.

Now you're making wholly unjustified conclusions. Since our discussion is about papal infallibility we (Catholics) speak in terms of the assurance of truth that infallibility gives. There is no revelation implied in an assurance of truth. But you make the erroneous conclusion a pope never received a vision, or other communication from God or from the angels and saints. Such communications, not being inspired revelation from God, are considered to be private revelation and not to be binding upon anybody who does not receive them. Sacred scripture is, of course, public revelation and binding upon the consciences of all who profess faith in Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Stryder06, here are the relevant glossary entries from the CCC,

INFALLIBILITY: The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful. This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals.

BIBLICAL INSPIRATION: The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us.

PRIVATE REVELATIONS: Revelations made in the course of history which do not add to or form part of the deposit of faith, but rather may help people live out their faith more fully. Some of these private revelations have been recognized by the authority of the Church, which cannot accept so–called “revelations of faith” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of Christ confided to his Church.​

 

[thereselittleflower]

Another thread indeed, espically since she never said Jupiter



I'm not rejecting that Revelation is an apocalytpic book. I know that fully well. It's full of symbolism to be sure, but not all of it is symbolic. Blessed are they who read and those who hear the words of the prophecy of this book. We're supposed to understand it. God didn't give this Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, just for us to say "Oh it's a nice story".

If you understand the apocalyptic genre, and how numbers are always used symbolically in them, then you would not be claiming there is a literal 1000 year reign of Chirst on earth. You can't just go picking and choosing "this is symbolic, this is not."

What dispensationalists do is take what is literal and make it symbolic,and tak what is symbolic and make it literal to make their eschatology and related beliefs look as if they have scriptural support.

But that is wresting the scriptures.

And the book was written to the first century christians who did understand the symbolism. And I have already explained why John wrote the book, and no , it's not just "an nice story" but to encourage the Church in perserverence in the face of tribulation almost 2000 years ago.