truth of the "rapture"

[Gregory Thompson]

The Full deposit of faith was given to the aposltes, Nothing new may be added. The Charism of infallibility given to the apostles and those they ordained, and so forth, is to protect that all truth.

okay . that sounds like what's taught in the catechism and practiced . thanks for explaining .

 

[MoreCoffee]

But what if one teaching of the Pope contradicts scripture? what happens then? are people obligated to do what he says anyway?

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.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think the Pope and E.W. would have made a cute couple
.

You're bad

She would have called him the Antichrist so often that they'd break up anyway

 

[Gnarwhal]

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.

So is it more that the pope is reiterating something that's already been deemed as infallible truth within historic Christianity, rather than saying something—that theoretically could be arbitrary—and labeling it infallible ex post facto simply because he said it in a certain manner or place?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So is it more that the pope is reiterating something that's already been deemed as infallible truth within historic Christianity, rather than saying something—that theoretically could be arbitrary—and labeling it infallible ex post facto simply because he said it in a certain manner or place?

Generally that is true. Papal teaching tends to be a confirmation of this or that Apostolic Tradition taught within the church, or on rare occasions, a pope might decide an argument after it has been debated long and hard within the church.

 

[seeking Christ]

The visions in Daniel (chapters 7 to 12) are apocalyptic and many non-canonical books from old testament times are too.

Wikipedia lists these Non-canonical

• Apocalypse of Abraham
• Apocalypse of Adam
• Apocalypse of Baruch (Greek)
• Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac)
• Apocalypse of Daniel
• Apocalypse of Daniel (Greek)
• Apocalypse of Elijah
• Apocalypse of Ezra (Greek)
• Gabriel's Revelation
• Apocalypse of Lamech
• Apocalypse of Metatron
• Apocalypse of Moses
• Apocalypse of Sedrach
• Apocalypse of Zephaniah
• Apocalypse of Zerubbabel
• Aramaic Apocalypse

Great answer, thanks! Next question: which of these are recommended reading?

 

[seeking Christ]

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

This seems reasonable to me, and unreasonable to cease. We are talking about what Jesus does upon His return and thereafter, right? So whether we have no opinion or an opinion one way or another shouldn't really matter, right? I mean I've always read the 1,000 years to be figurative, and the more I've learned about Scripture the more that understanding gets reinforced; but I've never been so bold on the point as to think I could dictate to our Lord what He should or should not do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Great answer, thanks! Next question: which of these are recommended reading?

I haven't read them so I can't tell you. Most ancient literature is interesting to read.

 

[seeking Christ]

Yeah .. about that . the passage that speaks of a snatching away is talking about the resurrection . the rapture was a new teaching in the 1800s that lead to a number of adventists groups forming prophetic doctrines without fruit . and lately its been floating around in the new age movement as something called "ascension"

Ascension in this manner is a Gene Rodenberry term

 

[seeking Christ]

Old testament instances that happened only to two people . don't indicate what happens in the new testament .

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

 

[thereselittleflower]

But what if one teaching of the Pope contradicts scripture? what happens then? are people obligated to do what he says anyway?

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.

 

[thereselittleflower]

So is it more that the pope is reiterating something that's already been deemed as infallible truth within historic Christianity, rather than saying something—that theoretically could be arbitrary—and labeling it infallible ex post facto simply because he said it in a certain manner or place?

And this when there rises a significant enough threat to the faithful that the faithful may be swept way in error by false teaching.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Great answer, thanks! Next question: which of these are recommended reading?

The purpose of the list was to show you a glimpse at the popularity of the genre, that the apocalypse of John is not something so unusual, not give you a recommended reading list.

 

[seeking Christ]

It actually changes the gospel itself.

How so?

 

[thereselittleflower]

This seems reasonable to me, and unreasonable to cease. We are talking about what Jesus does upon His return and thereafter, right? So whether we have no opinion or an opinion one way or another shouldn't really matter, right? I mean I've always read the 1,000 years to be figurative, and the more I've learned about Scripture the more that understanding gets reinforced; but I've never been so bold on the point as to think I could dictate to our Lord what He should or should not do.

I have already given the reason why chiliasm ceased to be acceptable.

Remember when it was held to by some, this was during times of severe persecution and would be more concernd with other doctrines, and not so concerned with eschatology. It is natural that as the Church emerged from this period, that it would turn it's attention to eschatological beliefs and more properly define them, rejecting those it found incompatible with christian teaching.

Please see this post for the details:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718096-10/#post62238778

 

[thereselittleflower]

How so?

That's a big question.

I'ld be happy to answer it, but it will take some time, and I'm pretty sleepy right now. Woodstove made things pretty warm . ..

 

[seeking Christ]

It simple means He Ascended and He will come back the same way, in the clouds .. . In other words, He won't appear somewhere on earth teachign again, he won't be in the wilderness, he won't be in the city, He won't be born a baby again . . .

He will appear in the clouds and that's the limit if its meaning.

No that's NOT the limit of its meaning! Ask the Jews what "clouds of glory" means, and remember Jesus was a Jew

 

[thereselittleflower]

No that's NOT the limit of its meaning! Ask the Jews what "clouds of glory" means, and remember Jesus was a Jew

"in like manner" refers only to the fact he ascended. It means he will not be born again, he won't be out in the desert somewhere, etc when he comes back.

That's ALL it means.

The scriptures say:

This Jesus, who was taken away from you into heaven, will come in like manner as you saw him go away into heaven. (Literal Translation)

​

It's about how he left ie he ascended into heaven .. he will descend from heaven. . . that's it - it's not about the particulars of his ascension, but the fact he ascended.

 

[seeking Christ]

Prophecy foretells of a time when the earth will be empty, hence the "rest" that will last one thousand years.

Stranger and stranger we go ... and curiouser and curiouser ...

 

[thereselittleflower]

The "Revelation is an Apocalytpic book" excuse is getting old. No offense. What makes you think it's talking about an indefinite period of time? Not every prophetic books is devoid of literal teachings. Is Jesus' return in Revelation literal or is that just symbolic of a futuristic happy time? Is the destruction of the wicked (all inclusive) literal or symbolic?

Prophecy foretells of a time when the earth will be empty, hence the "rest" that will last one thousand years.

Sorry, but you're simply mistaken.