Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $74,258
84%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 84%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by sasportas

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (Vanity: Megyn ratings down 13% from Mon)

    08/27/2015 5:59:11 PM PDT · 20 of 80
    sasportas to jimbo123

    I have used foxnews.com since day one, but Megyn disgusted me so much at the debate, not to mention her obvious slant interviewing guests on Fox, that I have switched to oneamerica.com for my news source.

  • God’s Eternal Reign (Protestant/Evangelical/Lutheran Devotional)

    08/27/2015 10:21:00 AM PDT · 7 of 8
    sasportas to Gamecock

    Just so much smoke about the “eternal kingdom,” Ligonier is a preterist, amill, postmill, site... everything and anything but premillennial.

  • Charlie Daniels' Open Letter to Congress: 'You've Betrayed Your Country' (Just Wow!)

    08/25/2015 8:13:13 PM PDT · 41 of 74
    sasportas to xzins

    Charlie Daniel, a great American. I’ve read other stuff he has written, they were but infield hits compared to this one, he knocked this one out of the park. Would to God we had a hundred more just like him.

  • A true story of the Great Escape: How an Aussie surfboard maker built the tunnel...

    08/25/2015 3:17:35 PM PDT · 5 of 12
    sasportas to naturalman1975

    What you mean the “cooler king” Vigil Hilts was not a hip 1960’s Californian?

  • The GOP's fantasy of a bigger Navy

    08/24/2015 10:26:36 AM PDT · 50 of 76
    sasportas to Mister Da

    You must be a zoomie, or former zoomie. The Air Force has argued against ships and for planes - theirs of course, not Navy - since WW2 days.

  • The GOP's fantasy of a bigger Navy

    08/24/2015 9:47:27 AM PDT · 45 of 76
    sasportas to ExpatGator

    Good post. Former destroyer sailor here. Regardless to how (allegedly) more capable our ships are today, all one has to do is take a look at a global map, most of the world is ocean, for heaven’s sake, to see what the Navy is responsible for. Big oceans require a big Navy.

    In this increasingly volatile world, threats are everywhere - thanks to Obama policies. A Naval threat by China or the Norks in Westpac, another in the Med, another by the Ruskys in the Persian gulf, could happen at the same time.

  • City of Houston Tries to Steal Decades-Old Churches—to give land to a-[trunc] (Protestant Caucus)

    08/11/2015 8:59:13 PM PDT · 32 of 32
    sasportas to Gamecock

    Never seen a thread with so many “removed by moderator’s.” Papists?

  • Hillary's Presidential Campaign is.. OVER.

    08/11/2015 6:32:59 PM PDT · 45 of 90
    sasportas to txrefugee

    The dedicated Left wants Bernie

    Not just the left, pay attention to Drudge, he pushes him big time. Apparently he likes Bernie and his socialism.

  • 2 under-the-radar Republicans won big at the debate

    08/09/2015 1:46:15 PM PDT · 19 of 19
    sasportas to ought-six

    Kasich’s response to Megyn made me want to puke. Whatever else he might be, social conservative he is not. I will NEVER vote for him or any of his ilk.

  • Did the first Republican debate effect who you are supporting?

    08/08/2015 10:16:40 PM PDT · 55 of 74
    sasportas to MNDude

    No, I have been for Cruz all along, Cruz’ performance in the debate only confirmed my support of him. But, I’ll have to say my opinion of Huckabee has been raised a few notches. Huck said some outstanding things. Kasich and Bush made me want to puke.

  • TRUMP: I WILL CONSIDER THIRD-PARTY RUN IF GOP DOESN’T TREAT ME ‘FAIRLY’

    08/02/2015 10:07:32 PM PDT · 19 of 56
    sasportas to Mozilla

    That does it for me. I won’t be voting for him no matter what.

  • Homeland Security Chief: We won’t call Chattanooga ‘Islamic terrorism’ out of respect for Muslims

    08/01/2015 11:28:02 PM PDT · 29 of 64
    sasportas to Whenifhow

    Let me see if I get this right. This Mohammed fellow kills four Marines and a Sailor, the administration says, though his name is Mohammed, the killings had nothing to do with him being Muslim. If it had nothing to do with religion, then what he did was cold blooded murder. Per this statement from the administration, what they are saying is: we must not offend cold blooded murderers?

    Incredible. Just when you think you’ve heard it all.

    Why isn’t there outrage, in congress and everywhere, over the obvious religious bias of this administration?

  • Ron Paul’s Passive-Aggressive Campaign Against Rand Paul

    07/31/2015 6:22:43 PM PDT · 6 of 6
    sasportas to 2ndDivisionVet

    Its just bad cop, good cop, its all theater, they’re both libertarians.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/30/2015 8:23:37 AM PDT · 636 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    In every instance on this thread, you and your fellow pretribs have shewn yourselves eschatological mystics. Similar to Hymenaeus and Philetus, who were guilty of blasphemy on the resurrection, their belief on the resurrection, “profane and vain babblings,” I Tim. 1:19, 2 Tim. 2:16-18. We should learn a lesson here: if there is one thing one you don’t want to mess with its the resurrection.

    EVERYTHING hangs on the resurrection, Christianity is nothing without it, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection the basis of our salvation, the first resurrection of Rev. 20 our eschatological hope. So vital, the word has an entire chapter dedicated to it (1 Cor. 15).

    If there is one thing you better get right, worse than Texas, if there is one thing you better not mess with its the first resurrection. But here comes the pretribs, rushing in where angels fear to tread.

    Heresiologists like Irenaeus tells us the mystic types, whom he termed gnostics, held to esoteric “knowledge,” what they “knew” was superior to what the word of God SAYS. They didn’t care what the scripture actually SAID, they went ahead and read into scripture their theories, their inferences. Instead of letting the word of God be superior, letting it correct them, they held their esoteric inferences superior.

    A former pretribber myself, and having had numerous encounters with pretribs over the years, like on this thread, I am convinced that pretrib is a form of estoteric mysticism, a kind of gnosticism. They hold to beliefs superior to what the word actually SAYS. Like the gnostic mystics, you refuse to let passages like Rev. 20:4 correct you.

    You mystic fellows make great sport out of passages like Rev. 20:4, twisting it to your own destruction, but its going to have the last word.

    With that, I take my leave from this thread.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/30/2015 1:03:37 AM PDT · 633 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    Sheesh, talk about inference. This has got to be worst example of all of it. Talk about reading theory into scripture, instead of believing what it actually SAYS.

    Jesus’ resurrection has nothing to do with the first resurrection. The Revelation was written late in the first century, he had been resurrected 60 plus years prior, chapter one has him there amidst the seven churches as the RISEN Christ...already resurrected.

    The revelation is written to the seven churches of Asia, with no resurrection having taken place yet for them in the book until 20:4, it would be the first resurrection to THEM. Certainly not to Christ.

    The first resurrection begins the millennial reign of Christ, his resurrection, having taken place two thousand years ago, has nothing to do with this one.

    To the seven churches, with no resurrection mentioned until Rev. 20, it would be THEIR first resurrection, by extension the church worldwide’s first resurrection.

    Since the first resurrection begins the thousand years, a resurrection of the church taking place seven years prior contradicts what the text actually says. The text says one thousand years, NOT ONE THOUSAND SEVEN YEARS. It is impossible for the church to be resurrected seven years prior to the point the text says begins the thousand years.

    Moreover, if the martyrs of the tribulation are resurrected when the millennial begins, then THEY are the definers of the first resurrection. They absolutely define the first resurrection to be post-tribulational, while at the same time defining it inaugurating the millennial reign.

    In relation to the second resurrection, which takes place after the millennial, this is the church’s first resurrection.

    In light of these these facts, we conclude when the text says “first,” it really means first. The first resurrection for the tribulation martyrs, the first one for the church.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/29/2015 5:39:38 PM PDT · 630 of 830
    sasportas to sasportas; Boogieman; Iscool
    My statement here...

    "Except there is not one first resurrection, pretribs tell us, there are three: Jesus' resurrection, a pretrib resurrection, and the first resurrection of Rev. 20."

    ...needs clarification.

    Martyrs of the tribulation are part of the first resurrection, for Rev. 20:4 tells us they had...

    "...not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years"

    This poses a dilemma for Pretribs, for it is obvious, with martyrs of tribulation resurrected, the first resurrection can only be a post-tribulation resurrection.

    They solve the dilemma by stretching the resurrection to include Jesus' resurrection and a pretrib resurrection. The first resurrection, thus being made one, inclusive of Jesus's resurrection, a pretrib one, and a post-trib one.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/29/2015 9:41:08 AM PDT · 612 of 830
    sasportas to Boogieman
    the first resurrection

    Except there is not one first resurrection, pretribs tell us, there are three: Jesus' resurrection, a pretrib resurrection, and the first resurrection of Rev. 20:4. Just like there are three comings.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 8:12:05 PM PDT · 590 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    If the Rapture happens at the end of the Tribulation as you say, the Tribulation saints meet Jesus in the air, and they then return to earth, then what happens???

    >>Since I’m not Amill. I believe, per Rev. 20, they rule and reign with Christ on this earth for a thousand years.

    As to those who survive the events at the end, who are not the elect (the elect are gathered at the 2nd coming, Matt. 24:29-31), and are not therefore in the first resurrection, who have not taken the mark of the beast, have to be the ones 20:8 refers to, “the nations which are in the four corners of the earth,” 20:8.

    But how is this supposed to be an argument for a pretribulation rapture? I don’t get it.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 7:39:56 PM PDT · 581 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    I think I know where you are going with this, I’ve heard that line of argument, was it Chuck Missler? anyway, honestly, I’ve never paid much attention to it. Would you mind describing it?

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 7:27:47 PM PDT · 577 of 830
    sasportas to huldah1776

    I’ve been focusing on “parousia, but you are right, the resurrections are THE key, and more simple, Occam’s Razor for sure.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 6:00:01 PM PDT · 564 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    Are you serious???
    >>Very much so. You said the marriage of the Lamb takes place before the tribulation, you, then, have the burden of proof to produce the scripture in Revelation that actually SAYS THAT. If you can’t produce that scripture, then it must take place where Revelation SAYS it will – Rev. 19.

    You admit there’s a LONG list of inferences that the rapture is pre-trib...
    >> But that is all they are – inferences. That’s the point. In every one of them pretribs INFER two parousias, two comings. Which is not there at all, they only imagine it there, due to the presuppositions they bring to their Bible. There is really only one parousia, yet they see two everywhere. As if they have bifocals on or something.

    Here’s another inference... (the last trump)
    >>To INFER that 1 Cor. 15:52 refers to a pre-tribulation rapture, as pretribs all do, when the tribulation is not even mentioned in the passage, now THAT is an inference. Another in that long list of pretrib inferences I was talking about. Makes me wonder if you know what an inference is. If the post-trib sounding of the trumpet in Matt. 24:29-31 isn’t the “last” trump, I don’t what else you’d call it.

    Being near??? Works for me and the Rapture...
    >>The entire JW fiasco is based on that “come near” you are talking about (“parousia”), when Jesus supposedly came invisibly to them in 1917. Wrong “come near,” of course, but so is yours. The true “come near” is when Jesus “comes near” to us, meeting him on his descent to the earth, 1 Thess. 4, to rule and reign over it for a thousand years. To read a mystical pretrib event into the word “parousia” is…, well, here goes, another inference.

    One (parousia) where Jesus ‘meets’ us in the air and we are caught up and the other (parousia) where Jesus lands on earth.
    >>You are only making my point here, that pretribs actually believe in two parousias, two second comings of Jesus Christ, when the Bible does not use this terminology at all. The way to get around this, is to propose a “two stage second coming.” But where does Paul set this forth? It ain’t there. In that case, we’ll just have to INFER it, right? Inferences again.

    This thread being evidence, with the times of antichrist very close, whether or not we get raptured out of here before the tribulation is becoming more intense by the day. What everybody needs, and you need, is scripture that actually and unequivocally spells out an additional second coming in black and white. And not an inference. Else all you have is a theory.

    We DO have it black and white, of course, it’s right there in front of you. No need to infer anything. All you have to do is just believe Jesus (Matt. 24:29-31). Like I said, all these passages you see inferring two second comings, are really talking about the same one Jesus set forth.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 2:45:08 PM PDT · 551 of 830
    sasportas to Boogieman

    As a pretribber, I came across George Ladd’s book, “The Blessed Hope,” many years ago. His “Vocabulary of the Blessed Hope” chapter, made a huge impression on me.

    He dealt with the Greek words, “parousia, “epiphaneia,” and “apocalypsis” (the coming, appearing, revelation, of Jesus Christ) extensively, his “vocabulary,” examining their every use in the NT, used interchangeably for the singular second coming at the close of the tribulation.

    As to my post, we have George Ladd’s scholarship to thank for it. Ladd, now deceased, was professor of NT History and Biblical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.

  • Pearl Harbor Memorial

    07/28/2015 2:24:31 PM PDT · 18 of 19
    sasportas to zot

    It is a moving tribute indeed, it moved this old Navy man. I wasn’t aware of this video, I have bookmarked it, thanks for the link.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 12:37:05 PM PDT · 525 of 830
    sasportas to editor-surveyor
    dispensational tom foolery.

    Ain't that the truth.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 12:33:22 PM PDT · 524 of 830
    sasportas to Boogieman

    I put quite a bit of effort in my post 441, to no avail apparently, too long I guess, I get no comments on it. Check it out, let us know what you think, did I deal with Jesus and Paul’s use of “parousia” right?

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 12:25:17 PM PDT · 522 of 830
    sasportas to Boogieman
    It’s all in the marketing!

    Bingo, you've put it in a nutshell. John Darby made many trips to America, marketing his new fangled pretrib doctrine, judging by the flood of pretribs on this thread, his marketing was successful. Not to mention the marketing of Hal Lindsey, etc.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 12:16:18 PM PDT · 518 of 830
    sasportas to Boogieman

    Where have you been, Boogieman, we needed you here. Your posts on this subject are always insightful.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/28/2015 5:48:41 AM PDT · 441 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool; Yosemitest

    Your response is but an inference, Iscool. Where’s the text in Revelation I asked for (other than the post-trib one in Rev. 19), that mentions a pretribulation marriage of the Lamb? Not another inference please, but a statement in Revelation that actually describes the marriage taking place prior to the tribulation.

    There is no such thing, of course. Neither have you given me the passage I asked for that sets forth the two parousias doctrine.

    I think at this point, I need to clarify something I said to you about the word “rapture.” Especially so, considering all the hoopla on this thread about it, begun by Yosemitest. I said:

    “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. [Notice, I have ‘rapture’ in caps here]

    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.”

    The point I was making, is pretribs consistently use the word “rapture” for the first of their two events, yet Paul uses the Greek word “parousia” (coming) for it in two of his most important passages on this subject, 1 Thess. 4:15 and 2 Thess. 2:1.

    Note: Paul did NOT use the word “rapture” to describe the first event. Why didn’t he?

    1. Because the “rapture,” or catching up, is only one incident, there is also the “descent” (of Jesus from heaven), the trump being blown, the resurrection/translation of our bodies, the “catching up” (rapture), “meeting in the air,” our “gathering to him.” All different incidents of the same event. The word used is parousia (coming) to describe the event, NOT “rapture,” it being only one aspect of it. Jesus must be central in all of this, not us, the word used, therefore, should reflect this…it does, the “parousia” of Jesus Christ!

    2. Because Paul didn’t believe the event was a different event from Jesus.’ If he believed it was a different event, he would have used a special word to differentiate it from the second event…like calling it the “rapture.” We certainly need a special word to describe such a tremendous event as this.

    Now, what I would ask of you, Iscool, if the first event is a different event from the second, as you believe, what IS the word – scripturally - it should be called?

    If you say “rapture,” then why didn’t Paul call it that? Why did he call it the “parousia,” the SAME WORD Jesus used in Matt. 24:29-31 for the “second” event? the same word Paul uses elsewhere for the alleged “second” event? 2 Thess. 2:1, for instance.

    And if you will concede that “parousia” (coming) is scripturally the word we should use, the word Paul used in Thessalonians, then, doesn’t this mean you have two parousias? Two comings? A parousia before the tribulation, another one after it?

    If that doesn’t sound right to our ears - and it doesn’t - then what are we going to call this first event – scripturally - to differentiate it from the second? Should we call it a “two-stage second coming?” As the older pretribs used to call it?

    Please answer, if you don’t mind, these questions for me. Thanks.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 4:44:07 PM PDT · 365 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    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.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 9:00:43 AM PDT · 314 of 830
    sasportas to Texas Songwriter

    On your first paragraph, the pretrib wrath argument has been answered repeatedly by myself and others on this thread.

    On your last paragraph, you need to go to my post 254, and deal with with what I said there. You have to go to Rev. 19:1-9 if you want to find out when the marriage supper of the Lamb takes place.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 8:28:06 AM PDT · 309 of 830
    sasportas to Texas Songwriter

    See my post 254

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 7:18:21 AM PDT · 302 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    See my posts 299 and 300.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 7:12:36 AM PDT · 300 of 830
    sasportas to Yosemitest

    Also notice that do not stay “in the clouds”, but we stay “with the Lord”.
    And WHERE is the LORD going ?

    ” And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives,
    which is before Jerusalem on the east,and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west,
    and there shall be a very great valley;and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. “

    >>A hearty AMEN from me! Jesus was standing on the mount of Olives with the disciples when he was taken to heaven, “a cloud receiving him out of their sight.” Acts 1:9-12 goes on to say: “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

    His feet will return to the place he left. He left from the mount of Olives, he will return to the mount of olives (the passage from Zech. 14 you quoted).

    When he left the mount of Olives, it was in one movement from earth to heaven, when he returns it will be in one movement - from heaven to earth, per Zech. 14 to the mount of Olives from whence he left.

    When he left, it was in the clouds of heaven (Acts 1:9), when he returns it will be in the clouds of heaven, Dan. 7:13, Matt. 24:29-31, 1 Thess. 4:17, Rev. 1:7.

    His one-event parousia will be in a post-tribulational setting (the setting in Zech. 14 is post-tribulational).

    I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread that it does not take two separate events, Acts 1:9-12 with Zech. 14:1-5 agrees, it has it being done in one event.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 6:44:04 AM PDT · 299 of 830
    sasportas to Yosemitest

    There are three different Greek words which are used relative to Christ’s return to this earth.
    They are:

    (1) parousia, as already defined;

    (2) epiphaneia, or, the “Epiphany,” the Advent (arrival) of Christ, meaning “a manifestation, appearing, brightness,”

    and, (3) apokalupsis, meaning “disclosure, appearing, coming, lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.”

    >>I agree with you completely, a good answer for all these folks on this thread trying to make two separate events out of the one event.

    However, I didn’t mean any of these three words when I said the word “rapture” is in the Latin version of 1 Thess. 4. I was referring to the Greek word “harpazo,” in Latin “rapture,” in English it is “caught up” (verse 17).

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 11:20:08 PM PDT · 256 of 830
    sasportas to Yosemitest

    Put your six gun away, Yosemite, you are firing at the wrong guy, I agree with you...mostly, except for your take on the word “rapture.” It IS in the Bible, in the Latin translation of 1 Thess. 4. It does not take place before the tribulation, it takes place in one event at the end of the tribulation. Post-trib rapture, not pretrib rapture.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 11:10:25 PM PDT · 255 of 830
    sasportas to Semper Mark

    Read the biblical accounts of the two events carefully and analyze the differences. I’m not trying to put you off, I want you to see it for yourself.

    >>As a former pretribber trying to get to the bottom of this, I HAVE read the alleged two events carefully, probably more than you, and I have done a lot analyzing, and I have seen for myself, but what I have found is not what you claim, I have found the case for pretrib wanting.

    You fellows don’t realize you are doing it, as I once did, but you are reading into scripture something that isn’t there.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 11:01:46 PM PDT · 254 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    Rev 19 takes place during the Tribulation...The church (the Bride) is in heaven getting married...

    >>No, not until the judgment of the great whore at the close of the tribulation, amidst the rejoicing that the millennial has come, Rev. 19:1-6, does the marriage of the Lamb take place, only then is his wife said to be ready, Rev. 19:7-9.

    It will take the tribulation to get most Christians ready for the marriage, most being pretribs. Pretribs, due to their false beliefs, aren’t ready for the tribulation, let alone the marriage of the Lamb.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 10:48:32 PM PDT · 251 of 830
    sasportas to Bob434

    The rapture isn’t a ‘return’ We are caught up to meet Him In the clouds- His return is when He comes to reign in the millennium.
    >>Not if you understand the rapture an aspect of the same event, when He returns to reign in the millennium. It doesn’t take two separate events, its all done in one movement from heaven to earth.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 10:40:46 PM PDT · 249 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool

    Jesus DID reveal to Paul a ‘new coming’...It was a mystery up til the time of Paul...

    1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

    >>There’s a trump sounded after the tribulation, Matt. 24:29-31, surely the last trump wouldn’t you say? You have Paul adding to Jesus’s words with a pretrib last trump. Nothing is said in the 1 Cor. passages you cited about the last trump taking place before the tribulation, you read that into the passage. It’s the same last trump as Jesus’.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 8:27:16 PM PDT · 208 of 830
    sasportas to Semper Mark
    These are two distinctly separate events.

    If so, where do you find the statement in the Bible saying this? We know Jesus made no such statement in Matt. 24, where did Paul say such? Though Paul spoke of the catching away (the rapture)in 1 Thess. 4, he said nothing about this being before the tribulation, nor there being two events, a two stage affair.

    Inferences are not sufficient for something as important as this, we need a clear statement somewhere using the language you used, "the rapture is one event, the 2nd coming is a distinctly separate event.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 8:05:03 PM PDT · 203 of 830
    sasportas to Iscool
    How do you prepare for your head being lopped of for being a Christian???

    Though there will be many martyrs, Paul says there will be "...those that alive and remain," who will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, 1 Thess. 4. Jesus says the same, some will persevere in their faith to their eschatological salvation at the end, "He that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved," Matt. 24:13.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 7:55:47 PM PDT · 201 of 830
    sasportas to daniel1212
    When the anti-Christ sits in the temple and declares he is God then a lot of believers will change their end-time beliefs.

    Good point. Though, from some of the obstinate pretribbers I have met, I wonder.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 5:26:22 PM PDT · 164 of 830
    sasportas to Bob434; Biggirl

    Try reading the 2nd coming passages in the NT as if there was only one return (see Biggirl’s post 161), it is quite an eye opener.

    It’s really quite simple, the disciples asked Jesus what would be sign of his coming in the olivet discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13),, he answered by giving many signs, but only one return... and it to take place “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” Matt. 24:29-31.

    After this, the notion that there was a coming in addition to the one after the tribulation never entered any of the NT writers minds. In each and every case, when one of them touched on the 2nd coming, like in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians for instance, it was always the same one Jesus had spoken of in Matt. 24:29-31.

    If Paul, who came along later, were to have been introducing an additional coming to the one in the olivet discourse, he would have been going against what Jesus had said. He would also have used very specific language setting forth this new thing, “Jesus is to return in two stages, not one like you have been led to believe,” or something similar, which he did not.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 2:35:30 PM PDT · 132 of 830
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    And my advise to you would be: if you are going to be starting all these threads, and having post-tribs come on them and disagree with you, you are going to have to learn to not be so thin-skinned.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 2:18:37 PM PDT · 128 of 830
    sasportas to Mom MD

    You will be better off not being the “staunch” pretribber (with a closed mind) you mentioned, you’d be better off being the pantribber you said you was in your previous post to avenir. As such, perhaps you would be more likely to have an open mind about these things.

    By the way, which are you? You said you are a “staunch” pretribber in one post, then in the very next post you are a pantribber. Scratching my head, here.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 2:00:48 PM PDT · 123 of 830
    sasportas to avenir

    Here’s a quote from the answersinrevelation.org site:

    “What if pretribulationists are wrong?

    If pretribulationists turn out to be wrong, the consequences will be devastating as millions of Christians who expected a pretribulation rapture find themselves in the midst of the end time drama, facing the Antichrist!

    Indeed, the evidence against the pretribulation view is staggering if people would simply allow themselves to be exposed to it. Yet, most refuse to even take a peek, and are constantly assured by their pastors and self-appointed TV prophecy experts that all is well. What are the shepherds going to say to the sheep if they have failed to prepare them for the roaring lion’s brutal attack?”

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 1:46:06 PM PDT · 121 of 830
    sasportas to metmom

    It won’t be critical to those with open minds, Bereans will be reexamining doctrines like pretrib. It will become very critical to those with closed minds. I gave a major reason for it, see my posts on this thread.

    This is not about spitting contests and bragging rights, it is about getting a people ready to play the role God is calling them for, the role they are to play in the end time. The central role. Pretribs are not being prepared for it. Why should they? they don’t believe they will even be around by that time.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 1:29:20 PM PDT · 113 of 830
    sasportas to sasportas

    By the way, for whatever reason I see the link didn’t work on my post 103. Here’s the website it came from:

    http://answersinrevelation.org/

    For anybody interested, click on the the icon with the ECF fellow on it, click on his “rapture” icon also, it has a lot of good arguments against the pretrib rapture.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 1:19:21 PM PDT · 108 of 830
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    You foist these unknown dudes(Pseudo-Ephraem, etc.) on everybody for your proof, while saying zero about well known writers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc., from the ECF - I call your hand on it, while pointing FReepers to a site with actual quotes from the ECF, and you call it insults and games?

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 1:02:18 PM PDT · 103 of 830
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    I would suggest you stick to the scripture, my friend, not that it will help you either, but history is the last place you should be going to try and prove a pretrib rapture.

    There is a mountain of evidence for a singular second coming (post-trib) in the ECF...and you know it. But you dishonestly brush them off with the back of your hand.

    The bogus Pseudo-Ephraem being guide, these others you cite, except for the Shepherd of Hermes, are just as bogus.

    Go to this link:

    http://answersinrevelation.org/on_antichrist.pd

    For just a few excerpts from the ECF on this...including the Shepherd of Hermes.

    Speaking of which, from the Shepherd:

    “Happy ye who endure the great tribulation that is coming on, and happy they who shall not deny their own life. For the Lord hath sworn by His Son, that those who denied their Lord have abandoned their life in despair, for even now these are to deny Him in the days that are coming.”