Posts by sasportas

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Is Libertarianism Compatible With Christianity?

    03/22/2015 9:11:14 PM PDT · 50 of 150
    sasportas to Yardstick

    Is libertarianism compatible with what the Bible teaches about a hedonist life style, sodomy, and atheism? Yes.

    To hedonists, Sodomites, and atheists, the Dems, of course, come first, but with the Libertarian party a close second.

    Liberaltarians routinely patrol FR, never revealing that’s what they are, subversively putting in their licks for the most anti-social conservative candidates possible in every election.

  • Is Libertarianism Compatible With Christianity?

    03/22/2015 8:51:13 PM PDT · 49 of 150
    sasportas to CHRISTIAN DIARIST

    Libertarians are no different from the Dems on matters that mean the most to conservative Christians. Dems, remember, the ones who tried to vote God out in their convention.

    Short answer NO!

  • TED CRUZ: ‘COURAGEOUS CONSERVATIVES’ CAN ‘REIGNITE THE PROMISE OF AMERICA’

    03/22/2015 8:06:52 PM PDT · 6 of 86
    sasportas to Jim Robinson

    The times demand a real fighter for conservative values, Cruz has proven himself consistently to be that man. I’m in for Ted!

  • When Is (Was) the Great Tribulation?

    03/22/2015 7:35:30 PM PDT · 27 of 131
    sasportas to grumpa

    Preterist nonsense alert. Flat earth society.

  • Ted Cruz's Planning to Take the White House—and He’s About to Leapfrog the Competition

    03/22/2015 7:19:53 PM PDT · 51 of 82
    sasportas to 2ndDivisionVet

    Cruz control for me!

  • Ted Cruz on 'Late Night with Seth Meyers': How did he do?

    03/17/2015 2:04:59 PM PDT · 34 of 48
    sasportas to SoConPubbie

    The thing I like best about Cruz, what you see is what you get, you can count on him to be a true blue conservative. He’s hands down my favorite.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/17/2015 11:12:39 AM PDT · 184 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    CBear, you are a FR warrior, mighty good at debating, a formidable opponent of the Papists, etc., on these threads. However, that is not what I am doing here. If that is what I wanted to do, I’d be throwing stuff back in your teeth. But I’m trying to talk heart to heart with you about things dear to both of us. Apparently, you can’t see that.

    Making the first horseman the first of the end time wrath of God, is indeed essential to you, and the pretrib system, and you know it.

    You have yet to say anything about the seals being based on Jesus in the olivet discourse. If you reject that, just say so, then we’ll drop this, and we can both move on.

    No need “to beat a dead horse,” pun intended.

  • The Biblical Last Days (Part 2)

    03/16/2015 10:38:30 PM PDT · 16 of 23
    sasportas to grumpa

    In some Christian groups, it appears that since R.C. Sproul’s 1996 book THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, forms of preterism are becoming the dominant view.

    In what groups are forms of preterism becoming the dominant view? Catholic? Presbyterian? Baptist? Lutheran? ??? Inquiring minds would like to know.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 5:44:07 PM PDT · 182 of 185
    sasportas to sasportas

    Correction:

    which in turn ushers in the wrath of God…seen first in the first seal. Not so.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 5:41:22 PM PDT · 181 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    The first horseman rides forth to conquer…militarily, and we have the beginning of sorrows (birth pains) Jesus prophesied. Just the first phase of the antichrist’s career.

    Which leads to the next, after having conquered, the antichrist takes rule over the world, the mark of the beast implemented, martyrdom ensues. Also prophesied by Jesus as the great tribulation.

    Next, the wrath of God which you are so fixated upon. The wrath of God upon all who have taken the mark, and have submitted to the antichrist one world socialist government. Also prophesied by Jesus, Matt. 29-31.

    A very good general outline if you ask me. Makes plenty of good prophetic sense. The rise of the antichrist, his rule and persecution, his demise...and wrath of God upon him and all who have fallen for his antichrist lies.

    What I’m getting at here: the wrath of God is not what the imagery of the first five seals are about, the sixth seal, yes. The first five seals preconditions that lead into the sixth.

    You are intent on making the first five seals the wrath of God, perhaps it has something to do with the pretrib system that is so engrained in you? I.e., the pretrib rapture takes place, which in turn ushers in the wrath of God…seen first in the seals. Not so.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 4:51:19 PM PDT · 179 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    Oops, my post 178 was supposed to be to you.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 4:49:26 PM PDT · 178 of 185
    sasportas to sasportas

    You are getting into an area I don’t care to go. Does God create and allow evil, and all that kind of philosophical stuff. In short, I don’t believe what you propose is what is being portrayed. The first horseman is just following Jesus’ prediction of the antichrist, to the disciples, the first sign of what is to come. The antichrist being the curtain raiser.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 4:34:25 PM PDT · 177 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool

    I would think so. Except the millions of Jews part, it’s going to get mighty ROUGH in the day of the Lord!

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 4:13:03 PM PDT · 175 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    It is my belief that everything taught and prophesied in the Bible flows into the Revelation. All lines of prophecy. The apocalyptic stuff we see there is drawn from the rest of the Bible. In this case, the line of prophecy is the olivet discourse, given by the greatest prophet of all. I believe the seals are drawn from that discourse. The Lamb opens the seals in Rev. 5, doesn’t he?

    The disciples asked him what the signs would be, and he gave them: antichrist, wars, famines, pestilences, martyrdom, the cosmic day of the Lord, in Revelation the seals. The rest of Revelation greatly expanding on that general outline.

    The only wrath of God I see in the seals is in the sixth seal, the wrath of God closing out this age. All the seals do is describe what is ahead of us. They follow Jesus to a tee, a general overview of the end time. The tone changes from general to specific, however, in the trumpets and vials.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 12:46:57 PM PDT · 170 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool

    Isa. 24 describes the cosmic calamities of the day of the Lord, with such things as the earth reeling to and fro like a drunkard, verse 20, I wouldn’t think anybody could survive on earth, would you? yet verse 6 says “therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.”

    Apparently these are the “nations,” surely only a remnant, left to enter the millennial.

    I thought even pretribs believed there would be a remnant of the nations left to enter the millennial. After all, that is what Rev. 20 says.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 9:26:03 AM PDT · 168 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    Re: your posts 154-156, 159, 164. They are just inferences, my friend, inferences. Fond theories of men read into the scripture. To single out, which seems to you, to be most compelling, God’s wrath. It is INFERRED that Christians cannot possibly be in the tribulation because it is the day of the Lord, God’s wrath. Since that is a major cause of concern to you, from this post-tribbers take on what ahead of us:

    The seals are an overview of what’s ahead of us, the rise of antichrist going forth to conquer, with wars, famines, pestilences, following in his wake (the first four seals), the great tribulation (seal five), the day of the Lord (seal six). All predicted by Jesus in Matt. 24, but with no gathering of the elect until verses 29-31, on the contrary Jesus has Christians continuing to preach the gospel, enduring in their faith until the end, vss 13,14.

    Unless you are unrepentant, like the FRoman Catholics are with their Mariolatry, which you are a champion about here on the RF, then the wrath in the trumpet are not directed at you, Rev. 9:20, 21. Likewise the unrepentant in the vials, who have taken the mark of the beast, Rev. 16:2, etc. None of the wrath in the seals, trumpets, or vials, are directed at the faithful, but rather the unrepentant.

    True, the elect must endure great persecution once the antichrist comes to power, but that has been the lot of the elect all along, beginning with Cain and Abel its been this way, nothing new there, the end time, with its seals, trumpets, and vials, is designed to bring people to repentance. God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” 2 Pet. 3:9. A great number will, Rev. 7:9, 14.

    As to the great day of God’s wrath, the day of the Lord, the cosmic signs signal its arrival, and Jesus places those signs “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” Matt. 24:29-31. THAT is the wrath of God the elect escape. Not the wrath of man, we must endure it. The rapture, the gathering of the elect, takes place at that time.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/16/2015 9:24:37 AM PDT · 167 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool
    That puts everyone who enters the Millennial Kingdom into the Christian (the Bride) camp, right??? With spiritual bodies who will reign with Jesus...But reign over whom???

    Rev. 20:3, 8, states that "nations" will survive the calamaties of the end time, continuing into the millennial kingdom in their natural bodies. A remnant of them, Zech. 14:16 identifies them the remnant "of all the nations" that are "left," i.e., who survive the end time, Armageddon being singled out, "the ones who came against Jerusalem."

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 6:20:34 PM PDT · 151 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool

    This gets us into how one views Revelation, and a lot of other prophetic material, the prophets, for instance. Time wise, it seems you have a very rigid view. Time wise, I see some of the stuff in Revelation as kaleidoscopic, some of it proleptic. The seals, trumpets, and vials, for instance. A rigid view would see them as 21 events happening one after another in time. Does the day of the Lord take place as the sixth event (the sixth seal) of the 21?

    The article at the link has the marriage of the Lamb taking place, time wise, after Armageddon. He sees it in the setting you see in Isaiah 25, a picture of rejoicing and feasting, after Armageddon, after the cosmic calamities of the day of the Lord. He sees the marriage supper of the Lamb fitting into that picture. So do I.

    We are talking apocalyptic stuff here (Revelation). Its not like reading something coming from the hand of man.

    Maybe not a good enough answer for you, but its the best I can do.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 2:59:48 PM PDT · 149 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool

    See the link I posted to CynicalBear.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 2:51:44 PM PDT · 148 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    On Jewish wedding customs, lest you ding me about too much typing, I insert here somebody’s else’s take on it, a post-trib pastor. Sorry, he does even more typing than me!

    http://answersinrevelation.org/wedding.pdf

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 2:38:55 PM PDT · 146 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    That passage means just what it says, no man knows the day and the hour. “The times and the seasons,” yes, 2 Thess. 2:1, but not the day and the hour.

    But the day and hour of what? is the question. The day and hour of the first parousia in a two parousia sequence? When, as per my posts on this thread, there are no such thing as two parousias defined for us anywhere in scripture? When there is no other parousia in Matt. 24 but the one in vss 29-31?

    The day and hour, then, has to be referring to THAT parousia, the one in vss 29-31, the only one in the discourse.

    Yes, I know the line of argument pretribs use, we are supposedly going to know right down to the day, and maybe even the hour, when the second parousia of the two parousia’s takes place. Jesus says otherwise.

    Other than the clear statement of Jesus, I don’t think the post-trib parousia will be known down to the day and hour because it will not be as easy as pretribs think to nail down to the day and hour the precise starting point. The ending day and hour is only as precise as its beginning days and hour.

    The whole pretrib argument of the day and hour is amiss, in my view, simply because the entire olivet discourse, from vss 3 onward, is about the singular parousia, the disciples question answered in vss 29-31. A supposed pretrib one is nowhere in view.

    Not to mention the absence of a definitive statement anywhere in scripture setting forth two parousia’s, or two-stage, whatever you want to call it.

    This old former pretribber sees ONE parousia everywhere. Try reading the Bible without the aid of the two parousia theory. You’ll be amazed.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 1:56:13 PM PDT · 144 of 185
    sasportas to Iscool

    Granted, a pretrib rapture would be a good point for Christ to come get the saints, turn around, go back to heaven, and have the marriage of the Lamb for seven years.

    However, as per the verses you posted, Rev. 19:7-9, the marriage is in a post-trib setting. The marriage of the Lamb comes, vss 7, in the midst of exultation over the great whore getting judged, and the blood of God’s servants being avenged, vss 1-3. Certainly not a pre-trib setting.

    Not to mention the absence of a definitive statement anywhere in the NT, defining a two-stage, or two parousias end time outline...as I tried to bring out in my last few posts. We have a lot of inferences around to be sure, including this one about the marriage of the Lamb, but no scripture that actually spells out two-stage, two parousias.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 11:12:24 AM PDT · 141 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    All right, CBear, you don’t want me to deal with it, so be it. It would have taken a lot more of the typing you don’t like. I have to go to town anyway. Have a good day. God bless.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 10:50:57 AM PDT · 139 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear; All

    Yep, here’s some more typing. (Your objection is a good point, I’ll get to it, but first this)

    Pretribs (and midtribs, prewraths) assume there HAS to be two separate events, one for Jesus to come for his saints, another, and a very separate one seven years later after the tribulation, for Jesus to come with his saints. However, the 1 Thessalonians passage says no such thing.

    Jesus is in heaven now at the right hand of God in expectation of his enemies to be made his footstool, Heb. 10:13. He doesn’t make the descent from heaven we see in the 1 Thessalonian passage, “For the Lord himself shall DESCEND from heaven with a shout, etc.,” until his enemies are where he wants them, to be put under foot. This assuredly does NOT happen before the tribulation, but at the end of it.

    When he descends from heaven, he is on his way to the earth, therefore. He is descending to defeat his enemies, to put them under foot, and to reign over the earth in the millennial, after he defeats them. He remains in expectation in heaven UNTIL THEN. The resurrection and rapture of the saved takes place as he descends, on his way down, he meets them in the clouds on his way to Armageddon. Thus, he comes (in the one parousia), FOR his saints and WITH his saints, in one descent from heaven, in one event. It does NOT require two separate events, as pretribs tell us.

    There is nothing in the Thessalonian passage, or any other passage, that says Jesus is to descend from heaven, then (after meeting the saints) turn around and go back to heaven. The only U-turn made is by the saints, who rise meet the Lord in the clouds, and continue with him in his descent. The Lord makes no U-turn, where he turns around and goes back to heaven, in our modern lingo this would be a traffic violation, an unauthorized U-turn. No scripture anywhere “authorizes” Jesus to do a U-turn. It is the saints who do the U-turn, not Jesus. Descending means descending!

    Pretribs (midtribs, prewraths) read into the Thessalonian passage their respective theories of the tribulation. Seven years or whatever, when that is all it is - theory read into the scripture (read into the Thessalonian passage). When the passage is not even dealing with the tribulation. The passage’s intent was not to deal with such things as the antichrist, the abomination of desolation, and all such things, rather Paul was giving assurance, hope, and comfort to those in the Thessalonian church who were sorrowing over their dead loved one, vss 13,14, 18. It’s purpose was to describe the rapture only.

    There was no need for Paul to go into a lengthy teaching about what that descent from heaven was, it would have been assumed among them to be the same parousia that Jesus spoke of in the gospels (Matt. 24). Paul called it “the parousia of the Lord,” vss 15, his readers at Thessalonica (since Darby hadn’t come along yet), knowing that Jesus was presently in heaven, would have understood the descent from heaven to be the Matt. 24:29-31 parousia.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/14/2015 9:24:27 AM PDT · 137 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear; All
    All right, CBear, you want to go to Matt. 24 now, and that’s understandable since my post was taken up mainly with the 1 Thess. 4:14-18 and 1 Cor. 15:51-55 passages. Where I was endeavoring to prove those passages were NOT Paul revealing the mystery of a new and additional coming, additional to Jesus’ post-trib one in Matt. 24:29-31, but were the SAME event.

    The mystery, 1 Cor. 15:51, “Behold I shew you a mystery,” being the rapture, or “catching up,” the saved rising/resurrected then “caught up together” in the clouds, meeting Jesus in his descent from heaven, 1 Thess. 4:16,17. THIS ADDITIONAL DETAIL NOT DESCRIBED BY JESUS IN HIS PAROUSIA (Matt. 24:29-31), BEING THE "MYSTERY" THAT PAUL REVEALS. Paul’s parousia (coming) not a different Parousia from Jesus’, but the same one..

    Were Paul’s parousia additional to Jesus’ post-trib parousia in Matt. 24:29-31, then you would indeed have the “two- stage” I was talking about, which you deny you have. If your pretrib parousia is a separate parousia from Jesus’ post-trib parousia, separated by the seven years of the tribulation, then you have two parousia’s.

    If the parousia in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 is indeed an additional parousia from the post-trib one in Matt. 24:29-31, then where is the language in these passages by Paul to describe such a thing? Are we amiss by expecting Paul to have said something like this:

    “Behold I shew you a mystery, I reveal to you a new and separate parousia from the one at the end of the tribulation that Jesus spoke about. There is actually going to be two parousias, one before the seven year tribulation, and another one after it. The one I am revealing is what we will now call the “rapture,” that’s the name it will henceforth be called. This rapture, you must understand is entirely different from the parousia after the tribulation. That one, you must understand is Jesus coming WITH the saints he had previously raptured some seven years before. My rapture is Jesus coming FOR his saints, the one after the tribulation is Jesus coming WITH his saints. My new revelation, you must understand, is two-stage, not just one event as you may have previously thought.”

    As important as this is to us who believe, this is our hope, for heavens sake, we would expect SOMETHING LIKE THIS said. But we find no such thing. Where’s the name we are to call this separate and distinct parousia? Does Paul call it the “rapture?” Are we amiss in expecting Paul to designate a special name for this separate event that comes seven years before the other one? No, he doesn’t call it the “rapture,” THAT IS PART OF WHAT HAPPENS, TO BE SURE, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE CALLS IT. He uses the same word that Jesus uses throughout Matt. 24, “parousia,” in the Greek, our English “coming! “

    The fact that Paul uses the same word, parousia, Jesus used (NOT calling it “the rapture”), and the fact that he used no “two-stage” or “two parousias” language to describe the mystery he is revealing, should lead us to the conclusion that Jesus and Paul were talking about the SAME event, the same parousia.

    And that using the term “rapture” to define this supposedly separate parousia, is but a modern construct, nobody before Darby, in all of church history, ever used such “two stage” language. Prior to Darby, it was just the 2nd coming, the parousia, and one event, not two.

    This has gotten long, sorry ‘bout that. And I haven’t even got to your comments about Matt. 24 yet. Actually, I haven’t even finished with what needs to be said about these two passages by Paul.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 6:09:03 PM PDT · 128 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    Ok, here goes, hope I don’t get too long and drawn out here:

    The line of thought for pretribs goes something like this (I know, because I was once pretrib myself). Jesus said nothing about any other coming except the one after the tribulation in Matt. 24 (vss 29-31). You therefore have to go to Paul, in passages like 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15, according to the pretrib line of thought, and have Paul reveal to us what Jesus did not.

    Paul is supposed to reveal the mystery of an additional coming, where Jesus leaves heaven, comes down to the atmosphere of earth, catches away the saints, turns around and goes back to heaven… then comes again with those selfsame saints seven years later. This time all the way to the earth.

    It would be nice if we actually had Paul describing all this for us. Especially this additional coming before the tribulation that Jesus said nothing about in Matt. 24. Which, since Jesus had only a post-trib coming, and Paul’s is in addition to Jesus’ (even if he does not come all the way down to the earth, it is still additional to the one in Matt. 24), this would be nothing else but “two stage.”

    But, if Paul is supposed to reveal this tremendous new mystery to us, he did an awful poor job of it. What he described in the Thessalonian and 1 Cor. Passages, can just as easily be seen as the SAME coming Jesus described in Matt. 24, Howbeit with much more detail. Post-tribs see that additional detail AS the “behold I shew you a mystery” of 1 Cor. 15:51.

    No additional coming is revealed in that passage, one has to read it into the text (thus an inference), for the text says no such thing. Both the Thessalonian passage and the 1 Cor. 15 one, describe WHAT will happen at Christ’s Parousia, not WHEN it will happen. We should already know “when” from Matt. 24, i.e., after the tribulation.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 4:47:24 PM PDT · 123 of 185
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    With all respects, CBear, the “catching up” passage to which refer, 1 Thess. 4:13-18, says nothing at all about the tribulation, seven years or otherwise. It just says there is going to be a rapture. We agree on that.

    It is what some expositors refer to as an inference. To someone peering through two stage 2nd coming spectacles, it seems to them to be so.

    Truth is, there is no passage anywhere that describes for us a two stage 2nd coming. One before the tribulation, another after it. There are inferences here and there, yes, but we should have more than that.

    For such an important issue as this, we would expect a clear statement setting this (a two stage 2nd coming) forth, but there is none.

    If there was such a statement, and not just a bunch of subjective inferences, we would not be debating this.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 4:14:51 PM PDT · 121 of 185
    sasportas to Mrs.Z; amessenger4god; All
    Mrs.Z, I notice you haven’t had anything more to say about Ephraem of Syria. You stressed it quite a bit, and so did amessenger4god in the lead article.

    Now, I don’t think Ephraem is such a big deal myself, as there is something like 20 or more witnesses from the ECF that most emphatically contradict the notion that the early centuries of Christianity support a pretrib rapture. Just the opposite is true, virtually EVERY witness from those early centuries witness for a singular rapture/2nd coming event. Your Ephraem of Syria being the ONLY exception...and a very poor one at that.

    It is thus no wonder you and amessenger4god focus so much attention on Ephraem, as also other pretribs.

    As I have tried to point out, Ephraem is not all that great a witness for your case, it turns out. See my posts 77 and 82. I quoted from Bob Gundry in post 82 on “true” Ephraem and “false” Ephraem.” I continue where I left off:

    “According to true Ephraem, “there is nothing remaining except that the coming of our enemy the Antichrist be revealed (Sermon on Asceticism).

    Ephraem warns ‘us’ Christians against the Antichrist BECAUSE THE ANTICHRIST WILL COME BEFORE THE CHRIST (Sermon on the End and the Consummation, the Judgment and the Reward, and on Gog and Magog, and on the False Messiah 433-40)...Ephraem goes on to describe as our hope the coming of Christ AFTER the tribulation (ibid. 94).” [my caps]

    Now, be honest Mrs.Z and amessenger4god, and every other pretrib, midtrib, or prewrath rapturist that reads this, and believes Ephraem to be historical evidence for your case, does THIS sound like Ephraem supports your views?

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 1:08:22 PM PDT · 103 of 185
    sasportas to Mrs.Z

    I am against new age occultism as much as you.

    I believe there will be a rapture, we agree on that. Where we differ is whether the rapture and 2nd coming are one combined event at the last day, or whether they are two very separate events. I believe the former, apparently you believe the latter.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 11:07:08 AM PDT · 82 of 185
    sasportas to amessenger4god; Mrs.Z

    Since both amessenger4god and Mrs.Z seem to hang so much on Pseudo-Ephraem’s supposed historical support for a pretrib rapture, I post here Bob Gundry’s comments. This professor at Westmont College, Calif. says of the two Ephraems:

    “In Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon Christians lie buried during the tribulation. They are raised from the dead, meet the Lord after the tribulation, so that their ‘meeting of the Lord Christ’ in the first supposedly pretrib passage of section 2, can hardly refer to a pretrib meeting without contradicting a good deal else in the sermon. Since Pseudo-Ephraem draws from true Ephraem, a look at true Ephraem offers guidelines for understanding Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon. The guidelines turn out to be post – rather than pretrib.”

    Gundry then proceeds to prove from the true Ephraem’s writings, from which Pseudo-Ephraem got his beliefs from, that “true” Ephraem himself was post-trib!

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 10:17:15 AM PDT · 77 of 185
    sasportas to Mrs.Z

    Church historians call Ephraem the Syrian, “Pseudo”- Ephraem.
    “Pseudo” means false. There was a true Ephraem the Syrian in church history, and a false Ephraem, this one being the false one.

    Not only so, the pretrib rapture pretribs claim to see in Pseudo-Ephraem is likewise false. A pseudo-pretrib rapture is read into Pseudo-Ephraem.

  • Will there be a rapture?

    03/13/2015 9:25:46 AM PDT · 67 of 185
    sasportas to amessenger4god

    The apostle Paul knew of no such thing as a two stage resurrection/coming. He saw three benchmarks, three bodily resurrection, with virtually everything eschatological fitting into them, we see this in 1 Cor. 15:22-26. “Every man (made alive) in his own order.” The order, or sequence:

    1.) Christ’s resurrection, his resurrection the first of the series.

    2.) “afterward (the next resurrection to happen) they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (”coming” is in the singular, not comings plural)

    3.) “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (According to Revelation, it is at the end of the millennial that death is destroyed)

    Notice:

    Paul saw only one resurrection and one coming ahead for “they that are Christ’s.” A singular event, not two resurrections or two 2nd comings.

    He saw this resurrection only for the saved, “they that are Christ’s,” he didn’t see this resurrection as a general resurrection, resurrecting both the saved and unsaved. The latter, thus have to be resurrected at the end of the millennial.

    Rev. 19, 20 agrees with Paul 100%. A resurrection for “they that are Christ’s” at his 2nd coming that begins the thousand years, and a resurrection for “the rest of the dead,” at the end of the thousand years.

    Three great benchmarks of prophecy, three bodily resurrections. Since Christ’s resurrection, the first one, has already happened, there remains the other two. One at the 2nd coming (Rev. 19), called “the first resurrection,” (Rev. 20), for “they that are Christ’s,” one at the end of the thousand years for “the rest of the dead,” (Rev. 20:5).

    No amount theological spin (pretrib, prewrath, amillennialism) can do away with these three great benchmarks.

  • Senator (Tom Cotton) Behind Iran Letter Is Latest Freshman Republican to Stir Things Up

    03/11/2015 10:46:39 PM PDT · 8 of 11
    sasportas to Zakeet

    Just listened to Cotton being interviewed on Fox News. I am awe struck at this guy! He’s got the David going up against Goliath kind of courage, and sharp as a tack to boot. Exactly the kind of man we need in this hour. We have the good people of Arkansas to thank for putting this man in the senate!

  • Ben Shapiro: Why Jews Vote Leftist?

    03/11/2015 7:25:51 PM PDT · 16 of 111
    sasportas to Bryanw92

    They also see the American right as “evil” Christians. Never mind that these Christians are their, and Israel’s, strongest defenders. Far more than the left.

    Not only so, but back in the middle ages, it was Christians they saw as their worse enemy, not the Muslims, they thought them almost like themselves...who today would behead every one of them if they could.

  • Knock Off The Loser Talk. This Fight Hasn’t Even Begun

    03/09/2015 9:58:12 AM PDT · 49 of 71
    sasportas to Kaslin

    Amen, the nail hit square. Too much defeatism on FR.

    The battle plan: first the Dems, get rid of them, next the RINO’s, get rid of them. This last election has done number one...mostly, next on the list, McConnel and Boehner.

  • The Legacy of John Knox [Calvinist Caucus]

    03/09/2015 8:39:08 AM PDT · 10 of 13
    sasportas to sasportas

    Typo, I meant to say:

    Calvin is no better than Darby or Scofield,

  • The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome!

    03/08/2015 12:34:40 PM PDT · 64 of 122
    sasportas to sasportas

    Correction. It was Mr. Rogers in post 55, in this thread…

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3263031/posts?q=1&;page=51

    Post 55 not post 43.

  • The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome!

    03/08/2015 12:26:22 PM PDT · 63 of 122
    sasportas to RaceBannon; af_vet_1981

    It is hard isn’t it, Race, having to endure Papists “pulling the Bible on us,”

    These who choose the ECF over scripture.

    Who, in thread after thread, attack Sola Scriptura.

    And in support of the Papacy, which for hundreds of years KEPT PEOPLE FROM THE SCRIPTURE… turn in your Bibles or be arrested.

    FRoman Catholics deny this, of course, but Mr. Rogers, in post 43, on this thread…

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3263031/posts?q=1&;page=51

    states the truth. This quote about “Biblia Prohibita” from his post, I thought most striking:

    “The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above.

    Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: ‘Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.’”

    Observing how these Papists handle the scripture, is almost like Obama when he, on occasion, has tried to use the scripture on us. What a joke. Neither Obama or these anti-Sola Scriptura’s know what they are talking about.

  • The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome!

    03/08/2015 8:53:52 AM PDT · 52 of 122
    sasportas to RaceBannon

    Amen to that.

    The point I was trying to make in post 43 was, and apparently didn’t do a very good job, was, per Acts 20:29,30, if men would arise among the church at Ephesus after Paul left them, who would teach things contrary to what Paul taught (”perverse things”), which would likely happen in a relatively short time after he left, what then of the ECF who taught a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years AFTER Paul?

    It is folly to put one’s trust anywhere but in the source, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers. As many do with the ECF, especially the RCC. Why trust in an alleged “succession,” when we have the apostles themselves?

    Out of all the threads I have read here on the RF, that deal with the RCC, theirs just dilly dally around, yours really gets to the heart of the matter. The only one to do so, in my opinion.

    Christ warned against building your house upon sand and not on the rock . ...the rock of scripture (these sayings of mine, Matt. 7:24). These men coming hundreds of years after the apostles, an alleged “succession,” is that “sand.”

  • The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome!

    03/07/2015 9:34:33 PM PST · 43 of 122
    sasportas to RaceBannon
    Irenaeus, who says he knew Polycarp as a young lad, who in turn (Polycarp) sat under the teaching of the apostle John, is sometimes used by some to authenticate Irenaeus. Right up there with the apostle John, some think. Acts 20:29,30, warns us about putting our trust in these kind of claims:

    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

    30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

    These people sat directly under the apostle Paul, yet Paul said they would go into error, and that right soon. And we are to suppose, based on Irenaeus' claim, that it is not possible he could have missed the boat somewhere?

    I know people that trust Irenaeus - and all the ECF - explicitly because of such claims of succession. Not me. I'll stick with the scriptures, than you. Great post, Race. I've bookmarked it.

  • Japanese ship found after 70 years

    03/04/2015 12:51:50 PM PST · 21 of 26
    sasportas to Forward the Light Brigade
    The Japanese should have won Leyte Gulf—but they backed off before they scattered the invasion fleet.

    The reason they didn't win, the reason they backed off, was because of the famous "Taffy 3," a few tin cans (destroyers) going up against gigantic battleships and cruisers, with some baby flattops, their planes not having the heavy ordinance they needed to be attacking heavy armored ships like these.

    A David and Goliath battle if ever there was one, and they pulled it off, David won. The most heroic action in US Navy history. A good read on it is, "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors."

  • Japanese ship found after 70 years

    03/04/2015 11:32:39 AM PST · 17 of 26
    sasportas to BenLurkin
    American warplanes sank the Musashi on October 24, 1944, at the height of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, regarded as the largest naval encounter of the war in which US and Australian forces defeated the Japanese.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Australian Navy (nor the British Navy for that matter) had anything to do with the sinking of the Musashi... a US Navy vs Japanese Navy event.

  • 11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

    03/03/2015 9:19:29 PM PST · 27 of 73
    sasportas to NKP_Vet

    The Papists are at it again, slamming Protestants...in their usual arrogant backhanded way.

    Protestantism is a effort to wrench ourselves past the spiritual darkness of the middle ages Papacy, back to the true faith and beliefs of original Christianity...the true “catholic” (meaning universal) faith.

  • Defending The Pre-trib Rapture

    03/01/2015 12:21:23 PM PST · 123 of 197
    sasportas to Lake Living
    “The Writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers”, of which there were about 20 father’s quoted, shows that not one of them believed that the Church was going to be taken before the 70th Week of Daniel.

    Agreed. But what of Pseudo-Ephraim, used by Ice and others, which they claim is proof for an imminent rapture? Wasn't Pseudo-Ephraim one of the 20?

  • Sen. Cruz is no ‘graybeard’

    02/27/2015 6:58:50 PM PST · 11 of 11
    sasportas to Moorings
    What you said here deserves repeating:

    Ted Cruz is the only one I trust to take meaningful action on the key issues that face this country, issues that conservatives want to see the needle moved.

    He gets my vote.

  • German tank battalion to be activated amid Russia crisis

    02/27/2015 5:26:18 PM PST · 52 of 118
    sasportas to Hugin

    Thanks for your post, good info.

    Re: the German 88 mm, my comment was based on how the allies rated it. They seem to have unanimous respect for it, whether as a flak gun, field gun, or on the tiger tank. Many of them, downright terrified of it.

    But, like you said, the allies had the edge in quantity.

  • German tank battalion to be activated amid Russia crisis

    02/27/2015 4:37:21 PM PST · 44 of 118
    sasportas to Hugin

    The German Army outgunned by the US Army? The Germans had the best tanks, not to mention their 88 mm howitzers, hands down the best gun of WW2.

  • Ted Cruz lights up CPAC with speech pushing ‘real’ conservatism

    02/26/2015 5:14:42 PM PST · 15 of 15
    sasportas to TomGuy

    Don’t want to start a war between the states here, but I do think the part of the country a candidate hails from means a lot. There is no comparing Wisconsin with Texas when it comes to conservative issues.

    Were he president, I don’t think Ted Cruz would stand any different on the issues than he has already abundantly shown. He reflects Texas values in that regard.

    When it comes to unions, we know Walker has done an outstanding job. But there’s a lot more hot issues than that out there - issues that mean a lot to some of us.

    Were he president, what do we really know about how he will come down on other issues? Would he reflect only his home state’s values? Which, as I mentioned, are not nearly as conservative as Texas.

    There is a lot of unknowns about Walker, not so with Cruz.

  • Ted Cruz lights up CPAC with speech pushing ‘real’ conservatism

    02/26/2015 1:05:23 PM PST · 6 of 15
    sasportas to SoConPubbie

    This is no time for somebody mediocre representing us, nor someone you are not sure what they will do if elected, WE NEED A FIREBRAND! Ted Cruz is that man.

    How can any real conservative doubt it, after listening to him at CPAC.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 8:04:16 PM PST · 77 of 177
    sasportas to NorthMountain

    Whether one confesses their sins to a priest, or to Jesus Christ is no small matter. But to you, it is throwing mud like a bunch of mountain gorillas to have strong convictions on this.

    People sin, when they do, what do YOU recommend they do? Go to a priest, or go to Jesus? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Since you have a higher and loftier ethical position than either Catholics or Protestants, what on earth do YOU do when YOU sin?