truth of the "rapture"

[thereselittleflower]

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.

I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.

If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.

 

[Stryder06]

Yes.

Thank you.

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.

A couple of things you have to consider:
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

So we can see that the scripture warns us that men among God's own people would rise up and teach erroneous doctrine. How then can we know what is true?

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them

Funny enough, the bible doesn't tell us to accept the "Take our word for it" approach.

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.

So again, death aside, how can you know that the rapture WON'T happen, if you don't focus on end time things? The only way you can say that theory is wrong, is if you have an alternate one that is right.

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

I'm always interested in know what the Catholic church teaches and believes. Are you going to tell me to read the Catechism?

 

[Stryder06]

I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.

If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.

Can you tell me this. If John was the last Apostle to die, and he alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, how does that affect the "all truth" position you hold, given that the disciples that died before him didn't receive that?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Can you tell me this. If John was the last Apostle to die, and he alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, how does that affect the "all truth" position you hold, given that the disciples that died before him didn't receive that?

OK . . let's correct something. . . .

Where did I say that John alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

How do you know the apostles who died before him did not receive the revelation he did?

 

[Hentenza]

You're over-selling it. Chiliasm was popular in the first few centuries, but it wasn't the view. We do find it in the writings of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Justin; not so much Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Even St. Justin, a Chiliast himself, says this in the Dialogue:

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch 80

Chiliasm and Amillennialism happily coexisted within the early centuries of the Church.

What the Fathers confess is that we shall be gathered to Christ at His coming. As this is what St. Paul says in his first epistle to the Thessalonians. What they never mention is the modern notion that Christians will be beamed up into heaven. Even Chiliasts such as Justin and Irenaeus are clear that they expect the Church to be present, to face the rage of Antichrist. E.g.:

"It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight." - Against Heresies, V.26.1

The problem is that there doesn't exist anything substantial to support this notion. The usual offerings from Irenaeus and Pseudo-Ephaem don't stand up to the barest amount of scrutiny. The usual quote from Irenaeus is twisted and ripped from the entirety of what he suggests--including the above mentioned where he understands the Church to be present, enduring through Antichrist's reign. The problem with Pseudo-Ephraem is even greater, primarily because the authentic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem looks nothing like the Latin-to-English translation floating around the internet by Cameron Rhoades.

What all the Gospels are rather clear on is that our Lord prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem which took place in the year 70, and that when He came it would be an unexpected and obvious thing. It will be as lightning flashing from east to west. There will be no doubts, no second guesses, no beaming of Christians into heaven to be followed by a seven year tribulation. When our Lord comes, it is in the glory of God the Father to judge the living and the dead. Otherwise it makes no sense for our Lord, in St. John's Gospel, to say explicitly that He will raise us up on the Last Day. Likewise, it makes no sense to hear what the Apostle says in his epistles, such as to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15, or to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 4. The resurrection of the dead happens at the Parousia, and not a moment sooner--this same Parousia which means the subjection of all things to the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

1. Justin does not mention who was opposed.
2. Many during the early period of he church disagreed with a plethora of apostolic teachings. They went on to form cults like the ones that Ireneaus addresses in Agains Heresies.
3. Justin did not mention what the other beliefs were so you are just assuming that it was amil.
4. There is no extant text to prove that amil was even taught prior to the 3rd century.
5. The passage that you quoted from Ireneaus is speaking of the time when the 10 kings will rise and the antichrist will come to power which is prior to the tribulation. It has no bearing on the rapture.

 

[Hentenza]

That text IS about chiliasm. That you even question this leads me to wonder if you have ever even read his Dialogue with Trypho.

Is that a jab?

"CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT"

That's what Justin Martyr is talking about Hentenza. . The text is about chiliasm, his beliefs, and stating it is not the view of many others - that thre are many who are of pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.

Why are you ignoring the plain words of Justin Martyr which clearly demonstrate the Church was not chiliast, just that some were and it was not in any way, shape or form, agreed with or accepted in the Church as a whole? And this in the second century?

The only thing that the passage demonstrates is that there were some that disagreed. What the passage does not tell us is who or what they believed. You are the one assuming that it must be amil but that would be importing your bias into the text. In fact, many in the early church disagreed with some of the apostolic teachings and went on to form cults such as the ones described by Irenaeus in Against Heresies.

Now, can you show any ECF prior to the 3rd century that taught amil? You need positive evidence here TLF. Opinion does not count.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Is that a jab?

I am simply surprised that someone from your background would not have known that.

The only thing that the passage demonstrates is that there were some that disagreed. What the passage does not tell us is who or what they believed.

There were MANY who did not agree who were faithful, holy christians. It does not matter WHAT they believed just that they did not believe in the chiliast system of explaining eschatological beliefs.

The claim you made was that the Church was chiliast.

The Church had no official teaching that was chiliast, and additonially, MANY did not believe chiliast beliefs.

So the Church cannot in any way be said in to have been Chiliast logically speaking.

The evidence to support such a claim is not there and the evidence that IS there demonstrates the exact opposite.

To paint the beliefs of some with such a wide and indescriminating brush in order to make it appear it was the Church as a whole that held this belief, when it is obvious on it's face to anyone who makes an honest read of the document presented as "proof", that there was no agreement at all on the matter, really begs the question why would you try to make such a claim when a simple and honest intellectual investigation so quickly and amply disproves it?

You are the one assuming that it must be amil but that would be importing your bias into the text.

Did I say anything about amillenialism? Could you quote where in my post I said anything about amillenialism?

Seems like your creating an argument against something I didn't argue. Why is that?

In fact, many in the early church disagreed with some of the apostolic teachings and went on to form cults such as the ones described by Irenaeus in Against Heresies.

Now, can you show any ECF prior to the 3rd century that taught amil? You need positive evidence here TLF. Opinion does not count.

I don't need to prove anything beyond the fact that the Church was not chiliast contrary to your claim.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower

I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.

If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.
​

Can you tell me this.

If John was the last Apostle to die, and he alone received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, how does that affect the "all truth" position you hold, given that the disciples that died before him didn't receive that?

Indeed!
Where does John mention the futuristic "rapture" in Revelation


.


..

 

[Hentenza]

I am simply surprised that someone from your background would not have known that.

I did know it. I just did not know where you were going with it.

There were MANY who did not agree who were faithful, holy christians. It does not matter WHAT they believed just that they did not believe in the chiliast system of explaining eschatological beliefs.

The claim you made was that the Church was chiliast.

The Church had no official teaching that was chiliast, and additonially, MANY did not believe chiliast beliefs.

So the Church cannot in any way be said in any way to have been Chiliast logically speaking.

The evidence to support such a claim is not there and the evidence that IS there demonstrates the exact opposite.

To paint the beliefs of some with such a wide and indescriminating brush in order to make it appear it was the Church as a whole that held this belief, when it is obvious on it's face to anyone who makes an honest read of the document presented as "proof", that there was no agreement at all on the matter, really begs the question why would you try to make such a claim when a simple and honest intellectual investigation so quickly and amply disproves it?



Did I say anything about amillenialism?




I don't need to prove anything beyond the fact that the Church was not chiliast contrary to your claim.

Are you saying that if ONE or two disagree, since we have no count given by Justin, then the claim that the church was chiliast is incorrect? I think you are stretching your argument here. Many in the early church believed that Jesus was deity but several groups did not, did that make the church not Trinitarian? I don't think so. My statement that the church was chiliast merely expresses that the predominant teaching of the Church prior to the 3rd century was chiliasm just as the church was Trinitarian because the predominant teaching was Trinitarian.

Again, can you show an ECF prior to the 3rd century that was not chiliast?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I did know it. I just did not know where you were going with it.

Now you're saying you knew the quote I gave was about chiliasm.

Then why did you say

Originally Posted by Hentenza

What are you trying to show with the dialogue with Trypho? Nothing in the text that you cited addresses chiliasm? Justin Martyr was a chiliast.
​

if you knew the quote was about chiliasm?

Are you saying that if ONE or two disagree, since we have no count given by Justin, then the claim that the church was chiliast is incorrect?

Where do you get 1 or 2 out of the quote from Justin Martyr where he says:

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch 80

​

How is "many... think otherwise" suddenly now 1 or 2?

How does anyone reasonably approaching his text get 1 or 2 out of "many" ?


Honestly, the more I read what you say, the more unreasonable the spin I see being put on Justin Martyr's words in your responses.

I think you are stretching your argument here.

I am obviously not the one stretching arguments here.

Many in the early church believed that Jesus was deity but several groups did not, did that make the church not Trinitarian? I don't think so. My statement that the church was chiliast merely expresses that the predominant teaching of the Church prior to the 3rd century was chiliasm just as the church was Trinitarian because the predominant teaching was Trinitarian.

Again, can you show an ECF prior to the 3rd century that was not chiliast?

I don't need to provide any such quote to prove my points.

And just as the Church further developed and deepened Her understanding and teaching of the Trinity, the Church also developed and deepened Her undertanding of eschatology in the same time period even.

And just as She rejected false trinitarian ideas as heretical, She also rejected chiliasm as heretical as I have already demonstrated.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

sorry .. seeing the word "chiliasm" and "chiliast" in a post too much was pretty funny . now to look up what that means .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Chiliasm - The doctrine stating that Jesus will reign on earth for 1,000 years.

Ohhhhh that chiliasm .. yepps . chili willi as Jesus said .. willi was a day .. chilli was a night oh wait peter said that . lol .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

oh the gift of laughter ..

i'm feeling so raptured right now . ...

 

[thereselittleflower]

Chiliasm - The doctrine stating that Jesus will reign on earth for 1,000 years.

Ohhhhh that chiliasm .. yepps . chili willi as Jesus said .. willi was a day .. chilli was a night oh wait peter said that . lol .

RFLOL

 

[thereselittleflower]

Do I need to post the Trolololo guy again?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do I need to post the Trolololo guy again?

that would top it off .

 

[thereselittleflower]

that would top it off .

Eduard Khil - Official Trolololo - YouTube

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, now that Stryder06 has abandoned Ellen White's eschatological meanderings, and now that we're all in agreement that if you ask a Catholic what the "official" position of the Catholic Church is on some matter you are very likely to get a reply that refers to or quotes from official Catholic teaching, we can proceed to the core issue in this thread .... why the dispensationalist rapture theory is not biblical

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Eduard Khil - Official Trolololo - YouTube

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very strange video clip!