Posted on 07/26/2015 8:55:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN
I am not sure about mine, but on others, if it's not off, then the guy on the receiving end, has probably seen enough single finger salutes to last a lifetime. 😱😆
Peter was acting hypocritically and needed confrontation because he was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. (See: Galatians)
The “nearest tower” can be over 100 miles in some cases.
I got stuck in a mountain canyon back in 1987, and my bag phone could only find a cell that was 110 miles away, but the call still went through, from Pittsburg, California to Chico California where the cell was, and then to Pleasanton California where my office was.
I wonder if Paul was critical of Peter for the duration, or just for that one issue?
Having the bride, the church, in heaven while the tribulation is going on (getting married you say), you must have read into Revelation text somewhere, where?
The only mention of the marriage of the Lamb I find in Revelation, I find at the end of the tribulation (Rev. 19:1-9)...and only then is she said to have gotten herself ready. Obviously, it has taken the tribulation for her to have gotten herself ready.
The pretrib spin on the marriage of the Lamb, is but another in a long list of inferences they believe “proves” a pretrib rapture. But inferences is not what you need - inferences = passages you believe that “infers” a pretrib rapture - what you need is an actual statement somewhere clearly setting forth your doctrine, setting forth an additional parousia separate from the one Jesus taught in Matt. 24:29-31.
Something by Paul like this: “Jesus taught only one parousia to his disciples on the mount of Olives, behold, I bring a tremendous new revelation, there are two parousias! one before the tribulation, another one after it. To differentiate the two, we will call the first one the “rapture.” Or something to this effect.
If you can produce such a statement, and you DO need one for such a dramatic thing as you propose, an additional parousia from the one Jesus set forth in his olivet discourse, then you will have a case. Until you can come up with such a statement, then all you have are a bunch of inferences. Which, in every instance all you are doing is reading your presupposed additional parousia into the word of God.
Sounds like Peter would not agree with you.
I had couple of former co workers who lived in Pittsburg. Up until I got to the area, I thought the one in Pennsylvania was the only one.
Who knows, maybe they will get inspired to read the whole thing. :)
Sounds like Peter would not agree with you.
Peter was taught very thoroughly that if some one takes his coat to give then his cloak also, if some one smites him on one cheek to turn the other cheek, and forgive not 7 times but 70 times that.
So it is only natural for him to have only good words for Paul even though Pauls words for him were anything but good.
Yes, Peter was probably aware of his short comings but he took what Jesus taught serious.
You are most likely right.
Peter had nothing to forgive, it was his place to ask for forgiveness.
Actually it means that Peter knew he was in the wrong.
Peter had nothing to forgive, it was his place to ask for forgiveness.
But of course Peter was not officially accused he was just slandered by Paul, it is possible the Galatians are the only ones who even heard of it.
While I have no way of knowing if Peter actually did wrong or if Paul just assumed he did or if the incident even occurred.
It is plain to me from reading the teachings of Jesus that Paul was in the wrong.
bkmk
The battle of Armageddon ends the Tribulation...That takes place after the Wedding...
WoW...Never heard that one before...
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
II Peter 3 15,16
Peter names Paul as one who is consistent in his writing and the writings are from wisdom give to Paul by God.
Since you brand Paul a liar then it follows that Peter was a liar as well.
As is written...”... Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord ‘in the air’, and so we shall always be with the Lord......1 Thess. 4:17
True, but if it says "you have heard that the antichrist is coming," then it must meant he must be coming, even though there were and are many antichrists, like as there will be The day of the Lord, though there have been many day of the Lord precursors already.
In any case, call the man of lawlessness what you want, but he certainly is anti-Christ.
No, but your Roodness is showing. I have read Michael Norten’s book ‘Unlocking The Feasts’. You might even benefit from reading it.
If you can find it, rewad the Jerome vulgate, before the Cathyoloic Church changes ao many ‘little things’. You have discovered on your own one of the blatant changes made, possibly to condemn the reformers, since the Douay Rheims changed a few words to reflect on the danger of ‘leaving mother church’. But you don’t have to trust me, find the earliest copies of Jerome’s text translations from the Greek to the Latin.
you posted the text in Latin and didn’t even see ‘rapiemur’? Amazing that
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.