truth of the "rapture"

[thereselittleflower]

Jesus didn't say that. He said:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Again I'll ask you, if you're not being lead by the Holy Spirit into truth, who is leading you?

Hold on hold on hold on!


Did you see what you just said?!!

You said "Jesus didn't say that" in response to my question - "Did Jesus lie when He said the ALL truth would be given to the apostles?".

So you just said he did not say the apostles would be led into all truth.


AND THEN you quote him saying exactly that!

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth
​

Do you still deny he said this to his aposltes?


Who do you think he said this to?

 

[Stryder06]

Hold on hold on hold on!


Did you see what you just said?!!

You said "Jesus didn't say that" in response to my question - "Did Jesus lie when He said the ALL truth would be given to the apostles?".

So you just said he did not say the apostles would be led into all truth.


AND THEN you quote him saying exactly that!

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth
​

Do you still deny he said this to his aposltes?


Who do you think he said this to?

We need to be accurate in what we say Jesus said. The Master did not say "I have given you all truth". He said the Spirit would "lead" them into all truth. And I never denied that He said this to His apostles. I said that I believe this truth (as with many others) extends to ALL of His children.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question now. If the Holy Spirit isn't leading you into truth, who is?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

well Jesus didn't technically say "all truth would be given to the apostles"

what he actually said was all truth would be lead into through the spirit of truth .

 

[Stryder06]

No, we do not even think that the Catechism is infallible, never mind inspired by God. You folk, from the Seventh Adventists are the ones saddled with a claim to inspiration for your prophet's writings.

Again, something I'd be concerned about if I were you. Catholics CONSTANTLY appeal to the Catechism to explain questions about doctrine. Why do such a thing if the book is faulty. If there are mistakes in the Catechism, then that could prove to be problematic wouldn't you say?

Us being "saddled" with the claim of inspiration is your problem, not ours, seeing as we don't have a problem with it

 

[Stryder06]

That's not taking away from scriptures in any way. I'm not going to continue to argue this point with you. I have presented the evidence of how apocalyptic books use numbers symbolically, and what the number 1000 in paricular signifies. If wishful thinking is more important than facts and ignoring facts rules the day then so be it.

I'll have to assume this "proof" was provided before I joined the thread.

But wishful, magical thinking does not make facts disappear or change. The facts are facts.

Isn't that the truth.

The number 1000 in Revelation is symbolic and not literal. No amount of magical thinking will change that.

No amount of "because we say so" will make your point valid either.

Well for starters, by claiming that the 1000 years is literal time frame.

Please refer me to the scripture that says it is symbolic, and I'll be more than happy to recant.

The bible does say so.

Where? Your inference of what is meant by "All truth" doesn't count.

Jesus promised only the apostles they would be led into ALL truth.

If we took all of what Jesus said to the Apostles and left it there, there wouldn't be many promises left for us now would there? How do you figure some things were meant for everyone, and some things were meant ONLY for the disciples?

The word ALL means ALL. . so the divine revelation was completely given to them. If it was completely given to them, then there is nothing remaining to be added.

So, there is no more need for divine inspiration today . . for that would mean adding to the ALL truth already given the aposltes.

If there is still something to be added, then they didn't receive ALL truth and then Jesus lied.

Did Jesus lie?

No one is adding anything. Revelation doesn't always mean "something new". More so than not, it's meant to fix something that's broken.

And of course Jesus didn't lie. It's not His words, but the understanding of them, that is in question.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again, something I'd be concerned about if I were you. Catholics CONSTANTLY appeal to the Catechism to explain questions about doctrine. Why do such a thing if the book is faulty. If there are mistakes in the Catechism, then that could prove to be problematic wouldn't you say?

Us being "saddled" with the claim of inspiration is your problem, not ours, seeing as we don't have a problem with it

Well, Stryder06, what else do you expect when you ask what the official teaching of the church is than that we would quote or refer you to the appropriate parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It's like me asking "what is the official set of fundamental beliefs espoused by Seventh Day Adventists?"

It is odd that you would complain when Catholics give you what you ask for. But it is not surprising that you would try to elevate the CCC to the same status that Seventh Day Adventists give to Ellen White's writings since by so doing you can attempt to deflect the obvious questions that Seventh Day Adventist claims about Ellen White raise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here again, ascending and coming back are different matters.

Yet the angels said nothing of believers being caught up at the ascention.

I will give the Catholic church some credit, they were right when they taught that angels are messengers, sent from God.

If sent from God, can angels lie?

Yet the angels told them as you saw Him go, He will return in like manner.

We didn't see Him go with a body of believers, yet we are told in several places of His return and in two places we are told exactly what would happen, and it does not fit with what angels said.

Either the angels lied, Paul lied, John lied, or scriptures lie.

If the scriptures lied, then they are not worth the papyrus they were written on. We mifght as well pick up a copy of Moby Dick and call that our bible.

Yet it was important enought that God sent angels to tell the disciples about Jesus ascention, but yet it does not match up with Paul's version in 2 Thes. 1:7-9 or John's version in Rev. 19:11.

You've convinced me, I'll get me a copy of Moby Dick and begin to preach that.

Its as reliable as scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

So it only works one direction? For Jesus to return in judgment He had to leave in judgment? But if Jesus returns to snatch Christians into heaven, that doesn't have to be how He ascended?

That seems like a pretty significant double standard.

Your argument fails because even you don't believe the logic inherent in your argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Stryder06]

Well, Stryder06, what else do you expect when you ask what the official teaching of the church is than that we would quote or refer you to the appropriate parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It's like me asking "what is the official set of fundamental beliefs espoused by Seventh Day Adventists?"

I've never asked for anything from the catechism. I've asked questions about what you believe, and 9/10 times, instead of being pointed to the bible, I'm pointed to the Catechism. I'd agree with you here if everytime you asked me a question about what I believed I refered you to the Fundamental Beliefs. That's not what I do though, so the correlation you presented isn't the same.

It is odd that you would complain when Catholics give you what you ask for. But it is not surprising that you would try to elevate the CCC to the same status that Seventh Day Adventists give to Ellen White's writings since by so doing you can attempt to deflect the obvious questions that Seventh Day Adventist claims about Ellen White raise.

I'm not complaining MoreCoffee, and I'm not deflecting. You brought up Ellen without warrant, not me. I'm over trying to "defend" Sr White. It's useless around here. I've decided to allow each individual to make up their own mind on the matter. I know where I stand, and I'm quite comfortable there.

Think what you will, but I simply refuse to entertain the "EGW is a False Prophet" crowd. You just better hope you're right.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I've never asked for anything from the catechism. I've asked questions about what you believe, and 9/10 times, instead of being pointed to the bible, I'm pointed to the Catechism. I'd agree with you here if everytime you asked me a question about what I believed I refered you to the Fundamental Beliefs. That's not what I do though, so the correlation you presented isn't the same.

I'm not complaining MoreCoffee, and I'm not deflecting. You brought up Ellen without warrant, not me. I'm over trying to "defend" Sr White. It's useless around here. I've decided to allow each individual to make up their own mind on the matter. I know where I stand, and I'm quite comfortable there.

Think what you will, but I simply refuse to entertain the "EGW is a False Prophet" crowd. You just better hope you're right.

Perhapaps I missed it, but what was E.W.'s stance/view on the futuristic "rapture" doctrine.
From what I know, the SDA sect is of the "Historicist" view of Revelation [which is also the view of the unorthodox Christadelphian sect]

http://www.christianforums.com/t3078067-47/
Was Ellen White a prophetess or a hoax..

Yeshua My Salvation > This is a thread i made in the Adventist forum on questions concerning the validity & authority of the writings of Ellen White, do they or do they not contradict scripture. Adventist claim that her writings are authoritive and don't contradict scripture in any point.

When confronted with obivious contradiction Adventist shrug arguments against there prophet with cockiness instead of providing viewers with answeres as to why they continue to believe in a prophet that added to scripture, contradicted scrpiture and finally contradicted herself. Heres the thread where this discussion began....http://www.christianforums.com/t3055...d-herslef.html


Yeshua My Salvation >[/b] There are many cases where we find Ellen White either #1 adding to the bible # 2 contradicting it, & # 3 Contradicting herself.

Take for instance her statement on Patriarchs & Prophetes pg. 45, were she claims that Adam's height was much greater than that of men who now inhabit the earth. This is an addition not found anywere in scripture... I always woundered why Moses failed to write this in the book of Genesis? Did the L-rd fail to reveal this to Moses? Did he have to wait much over 2,000 years to reveal it to some modern day prophetess? Who in the world gave Ellen White the authority to add to Moses writings when the Torah is complete as scripture clearly indicates.....

 

[thereselittleflower]

We need to be accurate in what we say Jesus said. The Master did not say "I have given you all truth". He said the Spirit would "lead" them into all truth. And I never denied that He said this to His apostles. I said that I believe this truth (as with many others) extends to ALL of His children.

The promise of being led into all truth personally was not given to all beilevers. It was given to a particular group .. the twelve apostles and only to the twelve apostles.

It was not given to you and me . . and for anyone to appropriate those words as if Jesus spoke them to each and everyone of us personally is a grave error.

The full revelation of truth was given to the Aposltes and they are the only ones who were promised to be given this full revelation personally

They deposited that revelation with the Church. The revelation is over.

The revelation has never been lost. Has never needed correcting. It has been preserved by the Holy Spirit through men who have been ordained in apostolic succession from the Apostles themselves.

So your claims men or women are raised today to correct some loss of this divine revelation is in error and without proof. Just self made claims. Failure to properly understand scripture and the fulness of the christian faith will result in such self claims of superior undertanding, but they are simply that, self claims that have no validation.

Just because someone receives visions does not mean they are from God. Just because someone is given information that is accurate that they could not possibly have known does not mean it came from God. Demons have accurate informtion too, and can come as angels of light. Self claims of revelation, even seemingly wondersly confirmed, mean nothing as to their divine or personal or demonic natures.

When one does not understand the ancient Christian faith they can be led down any path that seems right to them, but leads them away in varying degrees from the fulness of the ancient Christian faith delivered once and for all by the apostles themselves.

Novel revelations are exceedingly dangerous, and when information that is impossible to know otherwise is revealed, denominc involvement very likely.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question now. If the Holy Spirit isn't leading you into truth, who is?

Of course the Holy Spirit is leading me to truth. . but I am not promised the abiltiy to infallibly hear him as the apostles were.

So in my fallible ability to hear what the Holy Spirit speaks to me, I go to the infallible Teacher God gave us, a Teacher which is lead by the Holy Spirit to infallibly protect the deposit of faith, the all truth, given to the Apostles.

I don't have to rely on my own understanding and my own ability to hear the Holy Spirit correctly.


You use a teacher too . .her name is Ellen White, and you look to her messages as infallible, correct?

Our methods are not so different, but who we turn to is vastly different.

 

[thereselittleflower]

well Jesus didn't technically say "all truth would be given to the apostles"

what he actually said was all truth would be lead into through the spirit of truth .

Same difference . .since it was promised to the apostles.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Again, something I'd be concerned about if I were you. Catholics CONSTANTLY appeal to the Catechism to explain questions about doctrine. Why do such a thing if the book is faulty. If there are mistakes in the Catechism, then that could prove to be problematic wouldn't you say?

Because the Catechism is not the infallible teacher. We have much, much more than the Catechism. The Doctrines and Dogmas contained within it are infallible. Not ever word describing every little aspect is infallibly written.

Us being "saddled" with the claim of inspiration is your problem, not ours, seeing as we don't have a problem with it

And one can be greatly deceived and not have a problem with it . .so what does not having a problem with your beliefs of inspiriation today prove?

Nothing.

But you are trying to say things about our Church and our faith that are not true, so we keep correcting you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Same difference . .since it was promised to the apostles.

It was promised to all believers

Much like the promises to the OT forefathers .. that applied to their descendents .. what was promised to them .. was also promised to all who would believe as a causation of their testimony .. i.e. everyone who would believe in the course of history .

 

[thereselittleflower]

It was promised to all believers

Much like the promises to the OT forefathers .. that applied to their descendents .. what was promised to them .. was also promised to all who would believe as a causation of their testimony .. i.e. everyone who would believe in the course of history .

That's your interpretation.

But when Jesus spoke those words, only the twelve were there .. . since they were the first ordained by Jesus, and no rank and file followers of Christ were there, then no . . these words were said only to the Apostles.

It is a grave error to assume words said to specific individuals were meant to be taken as personally said to any of us today.


Any truth we feel we are led to understand today will not conflict with the ALL Truth given to the apostles. Since the scripture are only one of the tools Paul says completes the outfitting of the man of God, meaning there are other tools as well, then that means to have the full deposit of faith we need more than just the scriptures.

Remember, Paul didn't even use scriptures to teach the Atheneans. He used a pagan altar.

 

[Stryder06]

Because the Catechism is not the infallible teacher. We have much, much more than the Catechism. The Doctrines and Dogmas contained within it are infallible. Not ever word describing every little aspect is infallibly written.

I don't make a habit of nit-picking at how something is described. The doctrines are what matter. And are you saying that all of your doctrines are infallible?

And one can be greatly deceived and not have a problem with it . .so what does not having a problem with your beliefs of inspiriation today prove?

Nothing.

One can be greatly deceived and not have a problem with it can't they. How would one know if they were deceived or not? To what do they appeal? Would it be the word of men or the Word of God?

And I'm not out to "prove" anything. I asked a simple question which you have YET to answer. Two actually.

1) How does your church know what's wrong in regards to end time events if they have no offical teaching stating what's right?
2) If the Holy Spirit isn't leading you who is?

But you are trying to say things about our Church and our faith that are not true, so we keep correcting you.

I'm not trying to say anything incorrectly just for the sake of doing so. I'm simply repeating to you what I've been told by other Catholics. If I have it wrong, it's because it was given to me wrong.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I don't make a habit of nit-picking at how something is described. The doctrines are what matter. And are you saying that all of your doctrines are infallible?

Yes.

One can be greatly deceived and not have a problem with it can't they. How would one know if they were deceived or not? To what do they appeal? Would it be the word of men or the Word of God?

This is where one must study, dig deep into history, be willing to accept truth and put aside wrong ideas and allow God to remake them. First you must find where that truth is.

You must find what the early christians believed, how they lived, practiced their faith, how the worshipped. This led me into the arms of the Catholic Church against all my protestations.

And I'm not out to "prove" anything. I asked a simple question which you have YET to answer. Two actually.

1) How does your church know what's wrong in regards to end time events if they have no offical teaching stating what's right?
2) If the Holy Spirit isn't leading you who is?

We are not so much concerned with the end times "events" other than in a very general sense. Each of our own personal end time event could come at any moment and THAT is what should occupy our attention.

And I answered your second question already.

I'm not trying to say anything incorrectly just for the sake of doing so. I'm simply repeating to you what I've been told by other Catholics. If I have it wrong, it's because it was given to me wrong.

OK Are you willing to learn what we really teach and believe?

 

[seeking Christ]

You're right, I don't understand that, nor will I given that the bible says no such thing. I'd have to take the word of your church on that matter, and as I said earlier "Because we say so" just doesn't work well for me.

It also leaves them in a pickle re: the bit from Joel about daughters prophesying (and everything that goes with that) but we'll let them slide ...

 

[seeking Christ]

Seventh Day Adventists believe that Ellen White wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit so they implicitly believe her writings to be as true and as binding on them as scripture is.

You treat your Catechism the same way

Yes, indeed they do. But you're not supposed to tell them that! (Nor razz them about all the changes they've made to their "unchanging teaching")

 

[seeking Christ]

If there is still something to be added, then they didn't receive ALL truth and then Jesus lied.

Did Jesus lie?

There is no way you can make Scripture say this, but you have every right to believe that if you want to and I respect that.

 

[seeking Christ]

It was promised to all believers

Much like the promises to the OT forefathers .. that applied to their descendents .. what was promised to them .. was also promised to all who would believe as a causation of their testimony .. i.e. everyone who would believe in the course of history .

Yes, of course. How else would the Gospel spread?