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.
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
No such thing as a type or figure now? This makes it hard to justify inclusion of Enoch and Elijah's translation in Scripture
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.
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?
Well where your prophetess got her inspiration from, like about the giants who inhabit Jupiter, is a subject for another thread.
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.
Stryder, how is Ellen White different than Joseph Smith?
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.
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?
Sorry, but you're simply mistaken.
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.MoreCoffee said: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?
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: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.
- An infallible statement is a true statement but not normally a new revelation received from God.
- 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.
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:
- An infallible statement is a true statement but not normally a new revelation received from God.
- 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.
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.
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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?