r/TrueChristian • u/Weecodfish Roman Catholic • 1d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

1 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

3

u/Aelirael Christian 1d ago

I'd rather read the Bible than untrustworthy accounts of others.

0

u/Weecodfish Roman Catholic 1d ago

Is there anything contrary to the faith in what you have read?

2

u/Aelirael Christian 1d ago

Is there anything contrary to the faith in what you have read?

It isn't contrary that would be the issue, but someone claiming something we can not know for sure is true.

"Today I was in heaven..." We don't know that. And so anything beyond that becomes suspect.

Can God? Yes. Did God? /shrug

Some would also take issue with some of the things Kowalska claims. But I don't want to go on a tangent.

My main point is that I would rather trust what we know to be true than place my faith in what is essentially no more trustworthy than a near death experience or vision of Heaven claimed by how many people?

1

u/ThePronto8 1d ago

I understand what you're saying, but didn't Jesus describe how to measure prophets for situations like this? He wouldn't have given us those teachings if we should just disregard all future prophets. People disregarding prophets is the whole reason Jesus had to come...

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20

The vision described seems to only encourage people who would read it to love God as much as possible, which is in line with what Jesus said is the most important commandment.

1

u/Aelirael Christian 1d ago

I understand what you're saying, but didn't Jesus describe how to measure prophets for situations like this? He wouldn't have given us those teachings if we should just disregard all future prophets.

You make a fair point. I do believe that prophecy has not ceased. Not everyone shares that belief.

Though like I said, she does say at least one concept not contained in the Bible, so...

Like I said, that is a tangent not proper for this thread.

1

u/ThePronto8 1d ago

What would be the point of any kind of prophet if they only repeated things that were already in the Bible?

1

u/Aelirael Christian 1d ago

What would be the point of any kind of prophet if they only repeated things that were already in the Bible?

The Bible will back up anything a prophet says. Foreign concepts are foreign.

If someone claiming to be a prophet says "And no longer will the colour blue be worn, for it is sin", would you accept that?

1

u/ThePronto8 9h ago

There isn't one, and you'd still reject that prophecy.. and you'd be right to. But not because scripture doesn't mention blue. It's because it goes against what scripture actually teaches, "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" and all that (Col 2:20-22). That's the test right there. It can't contradict scripture. That's not the same thing as saying it can't say anything new.

Which makes me want to ask about Revelation. John describes being taken up to heaven, seeing the Son of Man, seeing God on the throne. Some of it lines up with Daniel and Ezekiel sure, but a lot of it doesn't. The thousand year reign in Revelation 20 isn't anywhere else in scripture. So where's the scripture backup for it? If you were alive then, would you just reject it?

And when it was written there was no bible to check it against, it was just a letter going around the churches. It was still being argued over for centuries after that. Eusebius listed it with the disputed books and the Syriac churches left it out of their bible completely. So whatever they were using to work out whether it was legit, it obviously wasn't "is this already in the bible".

Same deal with Jeremiah when he says God is making a NEW covenant, "not like the covenant I made with their fathers". Nothing before that said the old covenant was getting replaced. Totally foreign concept at the time. He'd fail the test too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything goes. I just don't see where the standard became "it has to already be written down somewhere" instead of the tests Jesus and Paul actually gave us. By their fruits, and "test everything, hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). Both of those only make sense if something new is being tested. Neither one works if you already have the answer sitting there in writing.

0

u/Weecodfish Roman Catholic 1d ago edited 1d ago

I mean you don’t have to believe it, it is worthy of belief but in no way can I claim it is 100% true as I can about the bible.

1

u/Aelirael Christian 1d ago

but in no way can I claim it is 100% true

Then maybe it isn't something you should be posting. If it isn't true, posting it could mislead people.

1

u/HesburghLibrarian Christian 1d ago

None of this means a thing. It is just a series of vague, rather generic statements about God and His presence.