The Rapture and/or Matthew 13

[Prodigal_Son1]

Remember also the example of the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8) BTW we learn from scripture itself that (a) he was not a castrato, and (b) he was an intelligent, educated man; perhaps superior to Philip in that way. Yet his humility (Mt 5:5) prompted him to say, " “How can I, except some one shall guide me?” And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him." (ASV) Again, Philip was anointed with holy spirit, like all the Christian evangelizers of that day; someone to be trusted. AND he was checking Philip against the scriptures. (v. 28)

I don’t agree that the eunuch was checking scriptures against what Philip said. Maybe you could explain how you arrived at that view?

Also remember, what was being explained was prophecies of the Old Testament. The New Testament had not yet been written. Even the Bereans did not all believe when they went to scriptures alone and they were comparing scriptures against what Paul was teaching. Many who heard Paul speak did believe. It was the authority of the spoken word that evangelized those that believed.

Paul wrote, “… in the house of God, which is the church [Gk ekklēsia] of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Checking in again with the admirable Strong, we find definitions referring to a congregation, of people.
The modern English “church” implies to most that a building was involved, or at least a denomination with a central HQ. That was not the case here: Temple worship was no longer required for Christian worshippers of Yahweh (Mt 5:17; Col 2:14), and neither Vatican City nor St. Paul’s would exist until ‘latter times’. (Acts 20:29; 1 Tim 4:1-3)

I do not agree, again. It appears to be selection of that which supports a view, which can go both ways.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

If you exclude the RC church from this accurate summary, you need to re-read Church history. 1054 is a year worth noting,

We cannot look at the great schism and make claims to justify hundreds and hundreds of different denominations. There was no such thing in the early Church. Paul taught the same things to all the Churches. One Church, in many locations.

For one thousand years, plus, there was one Church. The schism created the East and West, which most Protestants disagree with both.

“Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith … Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit [to them]: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this [were] unprofitable for you.”
“Prelates” is a label for certain ones in a church hierarchy; probably the original word was episkopos (overseer) or presbyteros (elder). Look into Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus for their qualifications for fitness. There are such whom I look to for help- my “Philips”- and they have such qualifications and their lives are such that I want to imitate their faith.

Again, it appears to be selective use of partial definitions. What you prefer to use, ‘overseer’, is acceptable, as is bishop.

G1985
ἐπίσκοπος
episkopos
ep-is’-kop-os
From G1909 and G4649 (in the sense of G1983); a superintendent, that is, Christian officer in general charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively): - bishop, overseer.

G4245
πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

Elder is correct, and ‘priest’ came from the translations, long before Strong’s. Again, both are correct.

pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.
[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; see per1 in Indo-European roots.]

Scriptures were gathered and kept by the Church, and eventually a canon of the New Testament was defined. How is it one can claim the very Church that safeguarded scriptures throughout the years, so that we have them in our possession today, got it all wrong?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I thought I’d go ahead and address the term ‘Catholic’, as it seems we’re headed in that direction.

Act 9:31 αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

thefreedictionary.com/catholic

Catholic

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

books.google.com/books?id=Jr0WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=kata+holos&source=bl&ots=jxfl2h_JjJ&sig=4cQ8soTtaZObBD7aURdWWUW2Tgo&hl=en&ei=lKKTTb-CL5GDtgeMgLVv&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kata%20holos&f=false

The model etymology

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

St. Ignatius wrote, around 107AD:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[noprem]

I don’t agree that the eunuch was checking scriptures against what Philip said. Maybe you could explain how you arrived at that view?
Also remember, what was being explained was prophecies of the Old Testament. The New Testament had not yet been written.

I appreciate the length and thougtfulness of your replies. Get back to you on the others, but I have time now to answer the above-quoted.
Here is what we’re told Philip observed:
So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. Acts 8, RSV; emphasis added.

In summary: The eunuch was reading from the Isaiah scroll. (Ch. 53:8, in particular.) Sixty-six chapters, full of information about the promised Messiah. Even if he had the “half-scroll” [some librarians cut it in half to make it easier to handle] he had plenty to work with. It is also possible that he carried in his ample chariot [Philip, the eunuch, and the charioteer in reasonable comfort] that he had other scrolls with him.

I say this because he was an advanced student and proselyte.
I say this because he was reading Isa 53 thoughtfully, which passage is considered difficult by the rabbis of today; not for beginners. (They don’t understand how The Descendant of warrior-king David could put up with such shabby treatment.) And he was an educated man in the way of the world. (“a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure”)
Even without other scrolls a man of his literary and spiritual accomplishments would have many key scriptures in memory. (You and I, of course, are also such men, and we don’t need to be shown that God loved the world so much that he sent his only-begotten Son to save us; we know it. )

Now: Would such a man- a card-carrying, voluntary son of Israel- allow a stranger to teach him a new religion keyed on an executed Jewish seditionist and heretic without checking the scriptures? I would not and do not. What I have written is to me an adequate answer to your question (a question I asked myself many years ago!). I’m sorry if it doesn’t prove to be so to you.

Finally, is it relevant that “New Testament had not yet been written”? As Peter noted in Acts 3, “But the things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled.” That was said to thousands of hard-core Jews, who had traveled from all over for the Passover and Pentecost. Not like today’s “Christmas and Easter” churchgoers. IOW Peter, Philip and the rest were living the Gospel, which The Four would later write. AND Philip was teaching the “good news”, or “gospel”, remember? When it hadn’t yet been written? How is such a thing possible, ‘inquiring minds want to know!’ Of course, by ‘showing the things foreshadowed’ in writing!

I must say that your emphasis on the oral, vs. the written, word seems to me to be the expected position of one whose religious leaders rely on just that to establish and maintain their doctrines. I cannot be swayed from my opposite view, and my responses will reflect that.

 

[noprem]

To Prodigal Son 1:
Say, old buddy, you tryin to get us in trouble?
Seems to me we’re off-topic (“rapture” not ‘scripture vs. tradition’). Don’t want ol’ Zach sending a Papal bull or some such after us.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8180904#poststop

Maybe recopy your stuff to an appropriate thread? I’m new here, myself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Now: Would such a man- a card-carrying, voluntary son of Israel- allow a stranger to teach him a new religion keyed on an executed Jewish seditionist and heretic without checking the scriptures? I would not and do not. What I have written is to me an adequate answer to your question (a question I asked myself many years ago!). I’m sorry if it doesn’t prove to be so to you.

I must say that your emphasis on the oral, vs. the written, word seems to me to be the expected position of one whose religious leaders rely on just that to establish and maintain their doctrines. I cannot be swayed from my opposite view, and my responses will reflect that.

While it is likely the eunuch was a convert to the Jewish religion, it is not stated as a definite. I can see how one might draw that conclusion, because the eunuch had traveled to Jerusalem and was reading the prophecies of Isaiah, but still that ‘definite’ can only be assumed which would be through a ‘tradition’. If it comes through a ‘tradition’, it can not be traced back to an approximate time of the writing of the Acts and would have had to be passed to us today through the ‘oral tradition’.

When reading scriptures, specifically the New Testament, we find evidence of the oral tradition. That is things written in the New Testament that cannot be found in the Old. Jesus refers to the ‘chair of Moses’ without explanation. How would the people have known what the chair of Moses was, it was not written about in the Old Testament? Paul specifically names Jannes and Mambres, who served Pharaoh during the time of Moses, but we don’t see their names in the Old Testament. The author of Acts tells us that Jesus said, ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’ That is not found anywhere in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry. Paul writes about the rock that followed the Israelites and the rock was Christ. Where is that written, other than Paul’s recalling the story to the Corinthians?

Paul wrote to hold to the traditions, whether spoken or written. We cannot exclude that there were other things taught. John told us, twice, that there were many things Christ did that were not written. Christ’s ministry was around 3 years long, yet how long would it take to read 4 different accounts of His ministry, much less if we were to read only 1? To assume we have all that is important, is also to assume that the other things were not.

The fact that the early Church grew is evidence of the ‘oral tradition’. The New Testament came much later. Is it possible that we have no writings from the other Apostles passed before writing anything down? Did the authors come to realize that Christ’s return might not happen in their lifetimes and became inspired to write everything down?

Only two of the Gospel authors were Apostles, that were with Christ during His ministry. Where did the other two receive what they had written if not orally?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To Prodigal Son 1:
Say, old buddy, you tryin to get us in trouble?
Seems to me we’re off-topic (“rapture” not ‘scripture vs. tradition’). Don’t want ol’ Zach sending a Papal bull or some such after us.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8180904#poststop

Maybe recopy your stuff to an appropriate thread? I’m new here, myself.

I’m not trying to get us in trouble. I was only responding to points you raised. Is it off topic? Possibly, but I am one to respond to points made and recommend someone, or myself, start another thread to continue an ‘off topic’ discussion. I never feel as if I’m crossing a line unless the op, or others specifically involved in the discussion, call my attention to it.

I’ve never seen it go beyond a gentle coaxing to return to the topic by the moderators. Sometimes they suggest starting a new thread. I believe it would have to be a blatant disregard to moderator suggestions to get into trouble.

If you stick around long enough, you’ll start to see a pattern of, people that claim ‘off topic’ seem to be in a ‘corner’ and will not participate further in the ‘sidetrack’ discussion started, even if one starts a new thread.

You seem to be reasonable and I don’t see you having problems, but still recommend one becomes familiar with all the forum rules and guidelines. What can be irksome is when a someone explains how they find their doctrines through an interpretation of scriptures and the opposing view denies that they come from an interpretation because they disagree with that interpretation.

When I converted to Catholicism, I saw many Protestants that would not admit that a belief was derived from an interpretation simply because they didn’t agree with the interpretation.

With that said, if you feel more comfortable starting a new thread, send me a pm and I’ll join as I can. I do respond from work, between calls. I work 24 and 48 hour shifts, and have a very heavy schedule coming up in August with paramedic school. I may have to wind down quite a bit then, but there are many more knowledgeable people than myself to present the same views, that I agree with.

Welcome to CAF.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you exclude the RC church from this accurate summary, you need to re-read Church history. 1054 is a year worth noting,

A passing thought came to mind on the above statement this morning. Wasn’t one of the first ‘schisms’ noted in the Gospel of John? John 6:66 (I see irony in that every time I type it.)

If one judges the schism as one is strictly wrong, then the other is correct. It’s ironic to see some Protestants raise that issue and not belong to either. There was only one Church for over a thousand years. We cannot believe that Christ’s Church was ‘hidden’ and nothing was recorded in history to document it’s existence, thereby showing the visible Church was the wrong Church. Christ promised, to the Church through the authoritative men He chose and appointed, that He would be with us until the consummation of the world. That promise had to be made to His Church, since we know He said that to men who would eventually die. So He was, and is, with us, all generations, until the consummation comes.

Christ told us about one returning, not multiple returns as told by some ‘rapture’ believers. (Trying to keep it on topic )

BTW, what Church are you affiliated with? There are ‘bible students’ among many Churches, but some specific beliefs associated with certain ones that I, and other Catholics have knowledge of. It helps us, somewhat, to understand where some are coming from and to know where we may have common ground.

 

[babylonsfalling]

It is my understanding that in general, the Rapture is the idea that near the end of time, God will miraculously assume the righteous into heaven, leaving the sinners to “tribulation” on Earth. I also gather that it is mostly a distinctively Protestant idea, and the Catholics tend to take a softer approach.

My question though is how this belief arose, as it seems to perfectly contradict the words of our savior, as quoted in the Gospel of Mathew:

Here in Mathew 13:41-42, Jesus plainly states that at the end of time, the lawless will be bundled off to “the furnace”, and the “RIGHTEOUS” will be the ones left behind. Its seems Jesus words plainly and completely contradict the entire notion of the traditional rapture.

So how did the rapture come to be so popular among certain certain Christian sects?

Rapture theology is a recent, non Biblical, un Catholic, newbie-type man made tradition. It could be called new-age stuff because throughout almost all of Christendom’s history rapture theology was non existent because it’s just not in the Bible. There are no verses speaking of Christ coming back to grab believers and then leaving with them for heaven. That would mean Christ comes to earth three times…or maybe 2 and 1/2 times Once at His birth, a half return for the “rapture”, and then a final return.

Good links on this subject:
catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

 

[noprem]

I thought I’d go ahead and address the term ‘Catholic’, as it seems we’re headed in that direction.

Not important to me, here.

I can stipulate (legal term) to the following:
There is such an organization called the Roman Catholic Church, to which you belong.
Like many organizations it has its own rules. These rules are [said to be] mandatory for Catholics. Since I’m not one I don’t subscribe to them. IMO few if any of the rules are found in the Bible, which I ‘subscribe to’. I’m willing to discuss those rules anytime, or anyone else’s rules in light of what the Bible says.
“Catholic”, I’m told, means “universal” or at least wide-ranging. (“His interests are catholic.”)

 

[noprem]

I’m not trying to get us in trouble. I was only responding to points you raised. Is it off topic? Possibly, but I am one to respond to points made and recommend someone, or myself, start another thread to continue an ‘off topic’ discussion. I never feel as if I’m crossing a line unless the op, or others specifically involved in the discussion, call my attention to it.

Okay, we’ll stay here until they kick us off.

 

[noprem]

While it is likely the eunuch was a convert to the Jewish religion, it is not stated as a definite. I can see how one might draw that conclusion, because the eunuch had traveled to Jerusalem and was reading the prophecies of Isaiah,

“And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,” Acts 8, KJV
No other worship than the Jewish available in Jerusalem, not worth a trip from Ethiopia, anyway. (As the eunuch know from his Google map.)
The temple of that day had a low wall called the Soreg, separating Jewish from Gentile areas. Attendants watched for any Gentile-appearing ones [profiling?] attempting to cross over. If necessary, the visitor could be required to show “proof” of Jewishness. (Gen 17:17)

Ergo, I can be sure the eunuch was a Jew by conversion. If you aren’t sure, then maybe we’re wasting each other’s time. I myself don’t subscribe to sola scriptura, but I can’t work with no-no scriptura

 

[noprem]

A passing thought came to mind on the above statement this morning. Wasn’t one of the first ‘schisms’ noted in the Gospel of John? John 6:66 (I see irony in that every time I type it.)

There was the possibility of a schism at Acts 1, after the “church” had been established: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
“They” accepted the correction; your Pope and the Patriarchs haven’t yet got over 1054.

Others: I already mentioned Avignon and Henry VIII in passing. In both World Wars Catholics killed Catholics with the aid of their respective military chaplains. IMO killing is the ultimate schism between men; perhaps you disagree. Both sides had the same written scriptures and catechisms, and John 13:34,35, but differing oral teachings. (‘Go kill Germans!’ vs. ‘Go kill Americans!’)

My own religion is the only one which e.g. opposed Hitler (a) as a group, (b) from the beginning, (c) on principle, not politics, and (d) against the laws of the country and of its mainstream religious organizations. Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Bible Students as we were then known officially in most of the world. Acts 5:29

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not important to me, here.

I can stipulate (legal term) to the following:
There is such an organization called the Roman Catholic Church, to which you belong.
Like many organizations it has its own rules. These rules are [said to be] mandatory for Catholics. Since I’m not one I don’t subscribe to them. IMO few if any of the rules are found in the Bible, which I ‘subscribe to’. I’m willing to discuss those rules anytime, or anyone else’s rules in light of what the Bible says.
“Catholic”, I’m told, means “universal” or at least wide-ranging. (“His interests are catholic.”)

Here, in private messages, or in another thread, I’d be glad to show you a scriptural basis to support Catholic doctrines. As I mentioned to you once before, I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, but I would expect an honest statement of how one can see how Catholic doctrines are arrived at from an interpretation of scriptures, even if you disagree with an interpretation.

Going to cut it off short this evening. Had a rough 24 hour shift and just got off this morning at 8. Need to crash and burn early.

 

[noprem]

Here, in private messages,

Stipulate means I agree with what you say, in that post. Don’t recall actual use of “catholic” in the NT, but certainly I agree there must be no more than one true religion, to paraphrase the Unitarians. So I would call the religion of Jesus and his father “catholic”, except that term would confuse my hearers. Is “Roman Catholic” that religion? You think so, I think not. TBD.
Jesus himself said to Pilate, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
So “the truth”. Just one. Would have to be “universal” if it’s truly from the Creator of the universe. Gen 1:1.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Stipulate means I agree with what you say, in that post. Don’t recall actual use of “catholic” in the NT, but certainly I agree there must be no more than one true religion, to paraphrase the Unitarians. So I would call the religion of Jesus and his father “catholic”, except that term would confuse my hearers. Is “Roman Catholic” that religion? You think so, I think not. TBD.
Jesus himself said to Pilate, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
So “the truth”. Just one. Would have to be “universal” if it’s truly from the Creator of the universe. Gen 1:1.

The term Catholic means ‘universal’, and is an adjective used by the early Church to identify itself. I provided the Greek used and tried to show how the word ‘Catholic’ was derived from the Greek used, first in scriptures then in a writing provided by St. Ignatius around 107AD, about the same time as John wrote Revelation.

I don’t think Unitarians were so named because of a belief in ‘one religion’. I thought it was a term used for believers who denied the Trinity. Maybe I’m not understanding exactly what you’re saying?

The New Testament is a combination of Gospels, letters and epistles. These writings were written and sent to different areas. All came from a unified ‘group’ and gave a unified teaching, with no contradictions/differences. The writings give evidence of, and teach, ‘one’. Paul was specific when he wrote for the ‘Church’ to be of the same mind and judgment. Christ, Himself, prayed for all to be one as He and the Father are one.

Through the many centuries, the Church had to protect the truth, as it had received it, and declared early ‘offshoots’ as heretics. We see first evidences of such actions in the New Testament with warnings of such from the authors.

There was a schism, but both Churches maintained a majority of the same beliefs, and still do. When Protestantism arose in the 1500s, many new ‘concepts’ were born, derived through private interpretations of the same scriptures. Now we have many, many ‘Churches’ teaching different doctrines, and all claiming interpretation through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot lie. It cannot tell many truths and it still remain one truth.

You identify yourself as a Bible student. Do you read passages, specifically the Gospels, and identify the audience Christ was addressing? His teachings were different between multitude and those He chose and appointed; with more specific instructions to those He chose and appointed over His Church. I have trouble applying all authority to myself when I see these differences. I view multitudes as laypersons, and those He chose and appointed as the rightful authority over His Church.

 

[noprem]

Okay, we’ll stay here until they kick us off.

BTW I just noticed we’re in Forums>Non-Catholic Religions, so I guess we’re safe.
Unless they make you convert to match me …

 

[NetStar]

I can honestly say I don’t worry about a “Rapture”. It’s truely the least of my concerns. IF a person is walking right with God, then what’s to worry about, even if it is true? Which I don’t believe in a “Rapture”.

I’ve heard tons about a Rapture. About how Satan will be relased to do his “evil work”…and so on.

May I just suggest a “News Flash”, Satan already is doing his evil work on earth. Just take a look around at our world. Take a good look at our Governments, Society, (all the sinful things going on, Gay Marriage, People living together out of wedlock, the Bible taken out of schools, abortion, ect.)

People are already living together in a Society, some who are walking right with God and some who are not…and yet some still believe in the Rapture? If you missed my point look just above at what I wrote.

Satan has been doing his “dirty work” with mankind for far more than 7 years already…if you still choose to wait for the Rapture, I’m not going to knock you on your thoughts, but really don’t you think Satan is hard at work already?

 

[noprem]

… Satan has been doing his “dirty work” with mankind for far more than 7 years already…if you still choose to wait for the Rapture, I’m not going to knock you on your thoughts, but really don’t you think Satan is hard at work already.

Just now read your post. Good reasoning.
What you see in the world is in line with 2 Tim 3:1-5, which begins “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”
Follows a ‘laundry list’ of human badness, which any reasonable person might attribute to humans influenced by an even stronger ‘badness person’.
On a larger scale, Jesus also mentioned several bad things and one good thing in answer to a three-part question some disciples asked him: “… the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Mt 24:1~, KJV Thus, they were asking about ‘the last days’ so important to Rapture folks and many others.
His reply included warnings [first] against false prophets, then wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilences [in Luke’s account] and IMO many things that are currently seen, but on a scale never before seen.
Another prophecy which, if it has been accomplished, accounts for what you say:
“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him … Rejoice then, O heaven and you that dwell therein! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” Rev 12:9,12, ibid.

What do you think?

 

[noprem]

Replying to your most recent:

The term Catholic means ‘universal’, … I don’t think Unitarians were so named because of a belief in ‘one religion’. I thought it was a term used for believers who denied the Trinity. Maybe I’m not understanding exactly what you’re saying?

I believe the Unitarian creed includes the ‘belief in at most one God’, which would mean no Trinity. They do consider themselves Christians.

Paul was specific when he wrote for the ‘Church’ to be of the same mind and judgment. Christ, Himself, prayed for all to be one as He and the Father are one.

The underlined is your paraphrase of John 17:11,21-23, of course. In the past I’ve had that quoted to me only as a Trinity proof text, so it’s nice to see it quoted appositely. Now, we both know that imperfect humans will not be ‘as one’ with Jesus or even each other, hence all the counsel given in James, 1 Corinthians, and other places. But the goal for Christians should be “one lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Through the many centuries, the Church had to protect the truth, as it had received it, and declared early ‘offshoots’ as heretics. We see first evidences of such actions in the New Testament with warnings of such from the authors.

You’re treating “Church” and “[NT] authors” as being the same; I do not.
Before there was a St Peter’s or a St Paul’s there was Acts 20: “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
Elsewhere he had given examples of two such teachings coming up: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, … who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” 2 Tim 4
“Forbid” and “enjoin” mean the false teachings would be called mandatory, not open to interpretation. Just so, “the Church” as you define it teaches priestly celibacy and taught unscriptural abstinence from certain foods. This is why I give precedence to sacred scripture over teachings of men. Other churches since have their own differences with the Bible.

There was a schism, but both Churches maintained a majority of the same beliefs, and still do.

“Majority” is your opinion; even if true, uttered back then it would have had you dancing on someone’s faggots- Rome’s or Constantinople’s. Have you read the respective anathemas? Those people were serious about the difference. (I believe there was just one, but it caused what historians call “The Great Schism”.)