-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Rainbow and a local flood
- Thread starter ShilohCity
- Start date
- Status
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 245
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Does that mean you really don't know what Catholics believe in? Anyway, no, it means we have a different, fuller understanding of what "The Word of God" is than Protestants, especially, it appears, the Creationist ones. (hint, it's not limited to merely the [abridged version of the] Bible 
)
Now, if you're actually interested in taking it in this direction, then I suggest that you poke around the Catholic part of the forums, and possibly the GA part too, depending on what sort of learning you desire.
)Now, if you're actually interested in taking it in this direction, then I suggest that you poke around the Catholic part of the forums, and possibly the GA part too, depending on what sort of learning you desire.
Upvote
0
artybloke
Well-Known Member
ShilohCity said:
No, it means that the Bible is believed for what it's supposed to be: a collection of writings involving poetry, allegory, history, parable, prophecy, wisdom literature, codex, epistle, fiction, myth etc. and not just as a justification for Protestant literalism.
We also believe that the Holy Spirit didn't abandon the church between AD 100 and 1500, or that the Holy Spirit confined himself to a few churches who claimed to have the "correct" interpretation of the Bible.
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
The rapture ain't in revelation.
As commonly understood, it ain't in Thessalonians either.
Rapture schmapture. I don't put much stock by theological neologisms from the nineteenth century. If it were the right interpretation, I'm sure the Holy Spirit would have pointed this out to someone prior to then.
As commonly understood, it ain't in Thessalonians either.
Rapture schmapture. I don't put much stock by theological neologisms from the nineteenth century. If it were the right interpretation, I'm sure the Holy Spirit would have pointed this out to someone prior to then.
Upvote
0
pressingon
pressingon
Obviously this is not the right forum for rapture discussions (perhaps the moderators could relocate these posts), but could you elaborate upon your statements a little further, Karl (and perhaps provide links to additional background information)? If I read your post correctly, you're saying that rapture teachings are relatively new -- something of which I was not aware.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Upvote
0
No relocation necessary. I have no interest in discussing mumbo jumbo prophecy. And I know Rapture isn't in Revelation per se I was just using it as an example of Biblical nonsense.
Upvote
0
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 245
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Oh, because you know, they (both Anglicans) were talking about the Rapture, which from what I can deduce, is not something accepted by all Christians. Congratulations on inadvertently attacking the Anglicans?mhess13 said:
Because I am Catholic. Being partial to Agnosticism does not mean I am Agnostic myself. It means, however, that I do hold respect for the Agnostic POV. More so than the Atheist view for example. Congratulations on breaking a rule. Again.
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 43
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Because he doesn't believe in the chiliast heresy?!mhess13 said:
Dracil said:
Both our churches have the same stance on chiliasm; its a heresy condemned by the Ecumenical Councils. So he was also bashing you Catholics (and the Orthodox, and the Methodists, and the Lutherans, etc).
And I say let him bash us. The more he does, the quicker he'll be banned.
Agreed. You gotta love it when people quote you out of context. Just remember that Jesus rewards those who stay faithful and suffer in the midst of persecution and adversity; you are only proving that you are a much better Christian and thus, a good example of one.
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Well, I was personally thinking more of the idea that Jesus comes back twice - once to take all the Christians away, and then a second time to usher in the Kingdom of God in all its fulness - this is what I mean by "The Rapture", and it is indeed a relatively new idea, despite it being mainstream in some circles these days, and one that I do not believe in. Jesus is coming back once and once only. I'm not entirely sure what His coming back means, but it's definitely not happening twice!
Pressingon - essentially, since the Rapture is a part of dispensationalist theology that only arose around 1830, I have to conclude that it is nothing more than a "new idea". Were it the correct interpretation, wouldn't the Holy Spirit have led His (oh for a pronoun that means His or Her ) Church to this understanding of it from the beginning, even if some or even many dissented?
The Orthodox have a very good schema for this sort of thing.
Suppose you have a subject about which there are several interpretations of the Bible.
Firstly, is one of these understandings newer than the other? If so, the older understanding is generally to be preferred.
Secondly, is one of the understandings held by a larger section of the church than the other? If so, the majority understanding is to be preferred.
The Rapture fails miserably on this schema. It's new, and it's a belief only of a segment of the Protestant church.
This doesn't mean it's false in itself - some other reinterpretations that I do accept would also fail this test. The difference I would suggest is that there are pressing reasons for re-evaluating these others, whereas there are none for reinterpreting this aspect of the Eschaton that I can see. Moreover, a double return of Christ, once to rapture and then to rule, seems to me to have implications for the Creed, which has a single return of Christ.
Pressingon - essentially, since the Rapture is a part of dispensationalist theology that only arose around 1830, I have to conclude that it is nothing more than a "new idea". Were it the correct interpretation, wouldn't the Holy Spirit have led His (oh for a pronoun that means His or Her
) Church to this understanding of it from the beginning, even if some or even many dissented?The Orthodox have a very good schema for this sort of thing.
Suppose you have a subject about which there are several interpretations of the Bible.
Firstly, is one of these understandings newer than the other? If so, the older understanding is generally to be preferred.
Secondly, is one of the understandings held by a larger section of the church than the other? If so, the majority understanding is to be preferred.
The Rapture fails miserably on this schema. It's new, and it's a belief only of a segment of the Protestant church.
This doesn't mean it's false in itself - some other reinterpretations that I do accept would also fail this test. The difference I would suggest is that there are pressing reasons for re-evaluating these others, whereas there are none for reinterpreting this aspect of the Eschaton that I can see. Moreover, a double return of Christ, once to rapture and then to rule, seems to me to have implications for the Creed, which has a single return of Christ.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
Futurist Only
Daniel 11, Part 2
