Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $3,882
Woo hoo!! And the first 4% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by sasportas

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Why Does Torah Law Allow Polygamy?

    07/04/2015 9:49:02 AM PDT · 33 of 35
    sasportas to 2ndDivisionVet

    Adam and Eve represent what God had in mind: Jesus Christ and his bride, the church.

    The Sinaitic system of Torah wasn’t what God had in mind from the beginning, what it does is condemn man to spiritual death as a sinner, the old covenant being a covenant of death, the solution to the problem of sin found only in Christ’s blood, our atonement. The Torah being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

    Likewise the polygamy practiced by Judaism in the old tesament. God had in mind monogamous marriage as seen in Adam and Eve. Polygamy is not what God predestined from the beginning, he predestined one man one woman in natural marriage, religiously one bridegroom (Christ) one bride (the church).

    God made promise to Abraham of a singular “seed” through whom all nations of the earth would be blessed, Gen. 22:17, that seed was Christ. The Torah which came later was but parenthetical, “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made:”

    “Wherefore then serveth the law (the Torah, or the old covenant)? It was added (a parenthetical addition) because of transgressions, till the seed should come (Christ) to whom the promise was made,” Gal. 3:19.

    It is to be expected that this Rabbi would be an advocate of polygamy, the Torah and polygamy being peas of the same pod. Christians who believe the New Testament, which teaches monogamy, believe one man one woman is God’s ideal.


    07/03/2015 7:28:31 PM PDT · 30 of 36
    sasportas to Baldwin77

    Aye, our independence is gone...maybe it is time to do another declaration of independence.

  • Ted Cruz: Media can’t wait to ‘filet’ conservatives

    07/03/2015 7:14:53 PM PDT · 16 of 32
    sasportas to Olog-hai

    Other conservative candidates would agree with Cruz about the media being but an arm of the left, but it is only Cruz, that I am aware of, that has actually SAID IT...and said it well. Cruz knows and has the courage to identify the real enemy.

    The leftist media must hate him with a passion for exposing them. Who they hate is who I am for.

  • 2016 DEBATE WATCH: Donald Trump Slides To Seventh Place

    07/03/2015 10:25:54 AM PDT · 21 of 63
    sasportas to bkepley

    Cruz is against same sex marriage, Trump is ambiguous about it.

  • Chris Christie to NJ county clerks: You must uphold the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling

    07/02/2015 5:19:15 PM PDT · 12 of 16
    sasportas to SeekAndFind

    What little possibility I might have had to vote for Christie just went out the door.

  • Peak Vox: The American Revolution was a mistake, you know

    07/02/2015 4:48:31 PM PDT · 6 of 42
    sasportas to Kaslin

    Well, lets see now. From the start, the Pilgrims coming to America seeking religious liberty, that, religious liberty the underlying basis of America, now officially ended with this SCOTUS ruling, what’s next on the agenda but to attack the revolution itself.

    First goes religious liberty, next to go the Declaration of Independence and the constitution.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 7:55:41 PM PDT · 247 of 306
    sasportas to MHGinTN


  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 6:10:40 PM PDT · 245 of 306
    sasportas to editor-surveyor

    In my recent studies in Revelation, I’m struck with this theme we see so often throughout the book, “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ,” or variations of it. Sure sounds like sola scriptura to me! Our testimony, or witness, of Jesus Christ, does not derive from the magisterium at Rome, it comes from the word of God.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 5:26:07 PM PDT · 239 of 306
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    In terms of harvest, as we see in the wheat and tares, I think it would have to be Rev. 14. There’s where you find the harvest theme.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 4:17:07 PM PDT · 237 of 306
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Post-tribs, such as myself, in terms of a harvest, see the rapture in Rev. 14:14-16. Relating it to the parable of the wheat and the tares, the harvest of the wheat is in 14-16, the tares in 18-20. In Revelation, the tares are equivalent to those who take the mark of beast, the wheat are faithful Christians.

    The mark of the beast serves to gather the tares out of God’s kingdom into the antichrist’s kingdom, the tares are thus gathered to be burnt. Not burnt then, gathered to be burnt. The wheat are then harvested as we see in Rev. 14, followed by the burning of the tares.

    Pay attention, Tennessee, cause you ain’t going anywhere. Don’t forget our little discussion here. You’ll have to deal with this in the tribulation, as to whether you’ll take the mark and be tares or not.

    In my view, things like the recent SCOTUS decision are already separating people out. To be finalized in the tribulation.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 12:36:56 PM PDT · 221 of 306
    sasportas to imardmd1

    Your interpretation of Heb. 12:22-24 doesn’t seem to square with the immediate context, nor the larger context, the entire book of Hebrews. I would say Paul is contrasting two kingdoms, one of this world, based at the earthly mount Zion, i.e., under Sinaitic law Judaism, with a heavenly mount Zion not of this world, as you said quoting Jesus, God’s “kingdom is not of this world.” This is Judaism contrasted with Christianity, in other words.

    Paul wouldn’t have meant Christianity here to mean “the RCC denomination and all other denominations and groups, full of gross impurities, fomenting doctrinal divisions, etc.,” as per your comment, as there was no such thing as the RCC or Protestantism at the time he wrote Hebrews. It could hardly have been his subject. The issue was rather, was Judaism and Christianity. Obvious when you look at the subject matter of the book of Hebrews.

    The parable of the wheat and tares, I would think deals with Christianity from a much larger perspective than what we see in Heb. 12.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 5:45:03 PM PDT · 100 of 306
    sasportas to Petrosius

    What you are driving at, of course, the RCC line that it has supposedly “given” us the canon of scripture. How silly. The RCC did not even exist at that time. Proven over and over again on this forum.

    Worse, how blasphemous. God, his Spirit, is who gave us the scriptures, both OT and NT. Though written by men, it was he the CEO overseeing it the work...preserving it until this day. You attribute to men, what belongs to God. Not very wise on your part.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 5:17:54 PM PDT · 95 of 306
    sasportas to Petrosius

    John was part of that church you speak of, its history traced to Jerusalem, where they were born from above.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 4:28:33 PM PDT · 93 of 306
    sasportas to Petrosius

    Then when did the great apostasy actually occur? At what date did the beliefs and teachings of the early church become unreliable?

    >You are looking for light switches again. No particular date we could call a light switch, but we know by the time of John’s epistles, including Revelation, it was bad enough that John would say -

    “Even now are there many antichrists...they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us,” 1 John 2:18, 19.

    The seven churches in Revelation has many references of apostatizing going on at John’s day, for example, the Nicolaitans. Christ warning the churches to hold fast amidst it.

  • Complete Transcript: Senator Ted Cruz Interview With NPR News

    06/29/2015 4:02:51 PM PDT · 18 of 27
    sasportas to VinL

    Let’s cut to chase, the Commies have taken over. I’m for someone who has real fire in his belly against these commies.

    Ted Cruz is the only real representative of anti-communism we’ve got, his father a strong anti-communist, having escaped the clutches of Communist Cuba. His father knows what it is, likewise his son. Both father and son have THAT kind of fire in his belly.

    I don’t think most of the other candidates really even know what socialism is, and how it leads into communism, they speak vaguely about it.

    To put it simply, the commies are in control, we need an anti-communist in the drivers seat. Ted Cruz is that man.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 3:18:45 PM PDT · 74 of 306
    sasportas to Petrosius

    You are assuming I believe Constantine was a light switch, the pre-Constantine church one thing, the post-Constantine church suddenly something altogether other. I do not see it like that. I see the pre-Constantine church morphing into the Constantine one, the Papacy years later putting the finishing touches to the “morphing” process.

    You assume the pre-Constantine ECF bishops are equivalent to the original church in the book of Acts. Acts 20:29, 30 would say otherwise. It proves it doesn’t take several hundred years for people to backslide from original truths: after Paul’s departing Ephesus, grievous wolves would enter in among them, of their own selves men would arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

    I see the Papacy representing the worst form of the “grievous wolves speaking perverse things” trend Paul warned about.

    Main line Protestantism is more representative of the ECF. True Christians are more Berean than main line Protestants, going further in measuring Christian beliefs against the NT.

    The Papacy? It is so far out in the Constantine-Roman-pagan weeds, it is not even funny, not even relevant.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 1:16:21 PM PDT · 35 of 306
    sasportas to detch

    This totalitarian pagan-Christian thing called the RCC, masquerading as the original church, is one of the biggest hoaxes in all of history, a bigger hoax than even Mormonism.

    Their origin is not the 1st century, one has to be blind not to see that the church in the Bible, in the book of Acts, bears no resemblance whatsoever to this thing called the RCC. It arose centuries later, under the auspices of the Roman emperor Constantine.

    It hijacks the prerogatives that belong only to the true catholic church, the one you see in the book of Acts. A fraud plain and simple.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 12:08:04 PM PDT · 20 of 306
    sasportas to RnMomof7

    The original church was catholic (universal), and, continuing the Jewish scriptural tradition, the authority of scripture was appealed to constantly, Matt. 22:29, for instance, Jesus said to the Sadducees, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

    Quite an oxymoron, the Papists use of the scripture against Protestants on this forum.

    These are the same ones who burned Protestant martyrs at the stake, like William Tyndale, for the “crime” of trying to get the Bible to the common people.

    These are the same ones who once had the Bible chained to their pulpits.

    And the same ones who use the scripture against the scripture-first Protestants - or attempt to, they neither know the scriptures, nor the power of God - on this forum... on one hand, while denouncing sola scriptura on the other. Go figure. What hypocrites.

  • Marco Rubio on the gay marriage ruling: We live in a republic and must abide by the law

    06/26/2015 5:43:30 PM PDT · 22 of 95
    sasportas to The Ghost of FReepers Past

    I will never vote for Rubio no matter what.

    >I’m for Cruz, but I have countenanced the idea of possibly having to vote for him, say he were to win the Repub primary, NOT NOW, his comments today ended that.

  • Why the church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage

    06/26/2015 4:28:36 PM PDT · 52 of 59
    sasportas to Patton@Bastogne

    Amen, Patton, I’m with you 100%. I didn’t figure you was coming from a preterist standpoint. With enough Patten’s around we can really make a difference. God doesn’t have to have a majority.

  • Why the church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage

    06/26/2015 3:03:50 PM PDT · 47 of 59
    sasportas to Patton@Bastogne

    When you say pastors should drop sermons about the four horsemen of Revelation, does this mean you are preterist? I.e., the belief that all prophecy was fulfilled back in 70 AD...including the four horsemen? Please clarify.

  • Enjoyed my years engaging in discussions on Free Republic, but I am done. Time to face reality.

    06/23/2015 4:27:19 PM PDT · 246 of 337
    sasportas to sasportas


    I would suggest that we reexamine the pretrib/post-trib issue, this time with an open mind.

  • Enjoyed my years engaging in discussions on Free Republic, but I am done. Time to face reality.

    06/23/2015 4:25:45 PM PDT · 243 of 337
    sasportas to Codeflier

    Many posts on this thread stirred me to the depths of my soul, the poignant ones quoting Samuel Adams, Cicero, and Churchill, etc.

    But, as a Christian and to other Christian FReepers, which, I think I would be accurate in saying are the majority here, I feel compelled to say this. I would suggest that we reexamine the pretrib/post-trib issue, this time without an open mind. It has EVERY thing to do with our mental ability to handle the things that are ahead of us.

    Dig into it seek the truth about it, as I did some 40 years ago. Truth is, and I’m not going to get into a big yah, yah back and forth with anybody, none of us are going to get out of what’s ahead of us means of a pre-tribulation rapture.

    Jesus set the bar in Matt. 24, he said nothing of a pretrib escape; to the contrary, he said believers must endure to the “end,” verse 13, and when he said “end” he really meant end...through the tribulational signs he described, to the end of the age, verse 29-31. And then the 2nd coming and resurrection.

    What this means to me, though hard trials lie ahead, the gathering storm be upon us, we will win in the end. As in Churchill’s famous speech, one word sums it up: victory! Whatever the cost be. Never, never, give up! Persevere in our faith to the end.

    To this former pretribber, this revelation changed my life. It has made me much stronger in my faith. It will “man you up,” it will give you the kind of worldview to carry on the fight...which we know we will win! A post-trib apocalyptic worldview.

  • How 400 Germans Won the Battle of Waterloo

    06/23/2015 11:06:48 AM PDT · 12 of 26
    sasportas to Sherman Logan

    Wellington’s army also had its Scots in their kilts. As usual for them, they fought hard and well, playing a significant role in the battle.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/22/2015 1:10:12 PM PDT · 73 of 74
    sasportas to sasportas

    I should read what I type before I post it. Like this statement, which I make more sensible:

    Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, as Prof. Gundry has shown in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/22/2015 1:06:54 PM PDT · 71 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Using the plagarist false Ephraem for proof of pretrib before Darby, per Prof. Gundry shows in his writings, is as false as pretrib itself.

    Amongst a mountain of historic proof in the ECF, pretribs dismiss with the back of their hand, meanwhile turning to this incoherent “false” Ephraem character, as if he is the last word on the historic proof before Darby issue. Incredible, I tell you. Why not look to the true Ephraem instead of false Ephraem? Dishonest scholarship, in my view.

    Bottom line: using false Ephraem for “proof” - instead of the ECF and the “true” Ephraem - is grasping at straws.

    Chips on your shoulders, eh? Well, that is it as far as I’m concerned. This is my last to you. Find you somebody else to insult. Bye.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/22/2015 12:33:38 PM PDT · 69 of 74
    sasportas to sasportas

    To make more sense out of my statement:

    There has been post-trib missionaries who’s support has been withdrawn, forced out of missionary work, because their belief went against the overbearing beliefs of the pretrib overlords of their denomination.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/22/2015 12:16:23 PM PDT · 68 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Here in America, for as long as I can remember, it has been pretribism in the cat bird seat. Those of us who are post-tribs, treated like something that fell off a turnip truck. There has been missionaries who’s support has been withdrawn, forced out of missionary work, because they went against the overbearing pretribism overlords of their denomination.

    Now, what is it you are saying about condescension?

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/22/2015 11:44:21 AM PDT · 66 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN; redleghunter
    There were two Ephraem's, the true one, Ephraem the Syrian, his writings clearly showing no hint of any pretrib belief, and a "Pseudo" Ephraem, writing hundreds of years later, writing falsely under the name of the "true" Ephraem, plagarizing the "true" Ephraem. Pseudonyomous, in other words.

    The writings of this "Pseudo-Ephraem" are a stark contrast to what the true Ephraem wrote. The true Ephraem was very coherent and scholarly, false Ephraem just the opposite, utterly incoherent. If ever there was a unreliable document from ancient history, it is this one by false Ephraem. Modern Pretribs prove themselves as unscrupulous as false Ephraem by using such an unscrupulous plagarizer for their alleged "proof."

    Trying to mimic the true Ephraem, this plagarizer is all over the board. In one place in his document he says things that "sound" to a modern pretrib ears as if he was pretrib, which modern pretribs pounce on to use as "proof," but, when you read on, you find him saying things which no pretrib would ever say.

    This is what Bob Gundry, 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, 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 provide proof from the true Ephraem’s works, that the true Ephraem believed the same as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., virtually the same belief (singular 2nd coming, post-trib rapture) as every individual who wrote in those ancient times.

  • Drunken With the Blood of the Saints

    06/21/2015 4:09:02 PM PDT · 10 of 16
    sasportas to Zionist Conspirator

    Much of what you say about the black political situation is, of course true. I speak, however, of only a remnant of black Christians. Regardless to how small. God always has his faithful remnant, in Old Testament Israel - see Hebrews 11 - and Christianity. In universalist Christianity, a faithful remnant irrespective of their race, nationality, or color.

  • Drunken With the Blood of the Saints

    06/21/2015 3:37:11 PM PDT · 8 of 16
    sasportas to Zionist Conspirator
    Black and white chrstians have never really been co-religionists in this country. Instead each has considered the other as the Ultimate Enemy

    Only in the eyes of Zionist conspirators, who see everything politically. There are many black Christians who take their inspiration from the word of God, mainly the New Testament, not from politicians, black or white.

    By the way, something must be wrong with your spell checker. It is Christians, not "chrstians." And with a capital "C."

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 2:32:55 PM PDT · 49 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Please do, I’d like to hear what you’ve got to say about it.

    While you’ve been hijacking, I’ve been, in fact, doing just that. The one who ultimately takes his seat in the temple of God, according the ALL the ECF is an APOSTATE! Like what is going on as we speak, all around us...including this Pope. Men like Justin and Irenaeus were entirely spot on in identifying this one as “the man of apostasy.”

    As a “Historic” Premill, if you’ll notice, we put great emphasis on what the ECF had to say about it, the historic. And not what modern “prophets” have conjured up about it.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 2:20:13 PM PDT · 47 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    No, my post 18 and metmom’s post 45 are related to the subject of this thread. The subject is about who is this that “Takes his seat in the temple of God.” Isn’t that the name of the thread?

    It’s about the identity of antichrist, not an alleged pretrib rapture.

    Maybe you have something to say about the actual subject of this thread?

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 1:45:45 PM PDT · 44 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN
    your no rapture agenda.

    I'm trying to back out and leave the hijacking to you, but I can't let you get away with this. I am Historic Premill, in contradistinction to Dispensationalist Premill (pretrib). We believe, as you, in the rapture, differing with you and pretribs only on WHEN the rapture is to take place... and how MANY 2nd comings there is.

    We believe there is only one 2nd coming, as Jesus established in Matt. 24, rapture and resurrection, the gathering together to Christ in the air, upon his descent to the earth to reign over it in the millennial.

    We believe in the rapture, your "no rapture agenda" is false, but it is a POST-trib rapture, and not a PREtrib one. Part and parcel of the SINGULAR 2nd coming of Christ, no such thing as TWO 2nd comings.

    Continue with your hijacking...

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 12:36:53 PM PDT · 37 of 74
    sasportas to sasportas

    Pseudo-Ephraim = Pseudo-Ephraem

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 12:33:32 PM PDT · 36 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    CynicalBear wants to pit James Strong against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, you want to pit Ephraem against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Ephraem is Pseudo-Ephraim, pseudo meaning false. The mass of historical evidence is against the Pretribs, neither Strong nor Pseudo-Ephraim can tip the balance.

    I apologize again to FReepers for assisting the hijacking of this thread. I leave it to MHGinTN and CB to continue the hijacking. Later alligator.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 12:23:19 PM PDT · 35 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN
    Because you kept my command to endure

    You find that command in Matt. 24:13, the command to endure to the end. What end? The end the disciples asked him about in verse 3. The disciples there tied that "end," "the end of the world," or the end of the age, to Christ's 2nd coming. In answer to their question, so did Christ... throughout the discourse, including verse 13. The "end of the age" in his discourse, being "immediately after the tribulation of those days," verses 29-31.

    Like I said in previous post, there is no pretrib rapture in Matt. 24, Paul merely follows Jesus in 2 Thess. 2.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 12:07:31 PM PDT · 33 of 74
    sasportas to CynicalBear

    James Strong wrote his famous concordance in 1890, he thus could have been a pretribber, the influence of Darbyism was considerable by that time. Was he a pretribber, I don’t know, he may have been one of those who rejected Darby’s pretrib rapture, for all we know, many in England did.

    At any rate, I rather doubt we can use his concordance as the last word on 2 Thess. 2:3. Like I said, the context of 2 Thess. 2 literally bristles with evidence as to what Paul meant. Not to mention men like Irenaeus, who knew Greek quite well, I’d say.

    I think it’s folly to pit James Strong against men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. For all we know, were he to join this thread, we might find him siding with Irenaeus.

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 11:49:24 AM PDT · 27 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN
    My apologies to FReepers who are concerned with what this thread is supposed to be about. I apologize for helping MHGinTN hijack it.

    But to insert a pretrib rapture in 2 Thess. 2, is to read into scripture something that isn't there. Jesus set the bar back in Matt. 24, no pretrib rapture there, Paul is merely following Jesus in 2 Thess. 2.

    I quote here one of the foremost scholars of ancient times was Irenaeus, I am convinced he knew Greek at least as well as MHGinTN... and the pretrib preachers he follows! He said:

    "The apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 'Unless there shall come [apostasia] first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped... he will endeavor in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God."

  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 10:48:17 AM PDT · 18 of 74
    sasportas to metmom
    So it looks like we *Prots* were right about something after all. Must be a bitter pill for all those Catholics to swallow. I remember it well. We were inundated with thread after thread here on the RF, Catholics exalting this Pope to the max, while a great many of us non-Catholics, including myself, warning that this man was a Marxist deceiver of the first order.
  • Taking his seat in the temple of God

    06/21/2015 10:38:35 AM PDT · 17 of 74
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Slipping in a pretrib rapture on a thread that is about the antichrist taking his seat in the temple of God?

    No apologist for the RCC, but we can’t lay this one on them. When they put “revolt” in the Rheims, it wasn’t an innovation. No commentary on this verse by anybody in church history, prior to the Rheims, understood “apostasia” to mean anything else.

    Take Justin Martyr for example, he called the man of sin in verse 4, who would sit in the temple of God shewing himself God, “the man of apostasy.” Similarly, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Lactantius, Victorinus. They knew the Greek well! Yet not a one of these noted scholars interpreted “apostasia” to mean a pretrib “departure.”

    You don’t even have to be a scholar to see what the word meant. The context literally bristles with proof of what Paul intended “apostasia” to mean. The man of the “apostasia” would oppose all that is called God - sounds like a revolt, or rebellion, against God to me. “That wicked” in verse 8, a man of “strong delusion” in verse 11, deceiving the world that they should believe “the” lie, he being that lie.

    Enter MHGinTN, some 2,000 years later, to correct Paul, Justin Martyr, etc. “No, no, no, you are all wrong,” he tells us, we are supposed to understand “apostasia” to mean a pretrib rapture.

    Incredible, I tell ‘ya, what hoops pretribs will jump through to push their pretrib rapture.

  • Was The Papacy Established By Christ?

    06/19/2015 5:40:35 PM PDT · 92 of 725
    sasportas to Elsie

    Considering the Argentine Bolshevic Pope that the Papists have foisted upon the world, on this anti-communist site I’m surprised there is even two of them.

  • Cruz Woos Evangelicals, Saying Religious Liberty Will Be the Defining Issue of 2016

    06/19/2015 5:02:56 PM PDT · 26 of 35
    sasportas to ansel12

    Is Cincinatus’ wife a supporter of Walker? If so, your analysis is probably right. Walker supporters look to cast their man superior to Cruz, both being pretty close in the polls.

  • Astronomy Picture of the Day -- M45: The Pleiades Star Cluster

    06/17/2015 3:10:19 PM PDT · 18 of 24
    sasportas to Hebrews 11:6

    True, about the scientific side of this, but I rather doubt, to an ancient like Job, this is what it meant to him. Nor to God either, who, in scripture, defers to the times people live.

    To the ancients, the “girding” of the loins meant, in our modern lingo, “lock and load.” Orion the warrior with his loins girded for battle. His cords, or belt, conveyed that thought to the ancients. God who formed the constellations, has Orion pictured thusly, the question is put to Job, can he change this? can he loose those cords?

    Likewise, the Pleiades.

  • Astronomy Picture of the Day -- M45: The Pleiades Star Cluster

    06/17/2015 12:31:09 PM PDT · 9 of 24
    sasportas to beethovenfan

    And in the book of Amos:

    “Seek him that maketh the seven stars (the Pleiades) and Orion,” 5:8.

    Some believe the seven stars in Jesus’ hand Rev. one, has its basis in the Pleiades.

  • Southern Baptist Convention's statement opposing same-sex marriage

    06/17/2015 12:25:35 PM PDT · 18 of 34
    sasportas to Former Fetus

    All true Christians of America owe much to the SB’s brave stand on this issue. For God’s sake, its about time some group of significance did this!

  • Sarah Palin praises Trump, says he’s doing something RIGHT because the press is going BALLISTIC

    06/17/2015 12:06:10 PM PDT · 19 of 80
    sasportas to pgkdan

    A Trump/Orphah ticket? If this is true, stick a fork in Trump, he’s done.

  • RED FRANCIS: Commie Pope Blames Wealthy Nations for Plight of the Poor

    06/16/2015 12:52:39 PM PDT · 56 of 102
    sasportas to St_Thomas_Aquinas

    Your forgetting something there, Tom. RC’s believe their Pope is the head of Christianity, the rest of us Christians who are not RC’s must be in servitude to him. Which got a lot of Protestant dissenters, who said Christ alone is the head of the universal church, burned at the stake.

    As a RC you are supposed to be subservient to this Marxist Pope, like him or not. I think you’ll find it a bit more difficult, however, to get FReeper Christians to bow the knee to this Marxist. FReepers have this deep seated thing against Commies.

    This Commie IS NOT MY HEAD!

  • The Rapture / an essay

    06/16/2015 12:30:15 PM PDT · 144 of 157
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Let redleg answer, I wasn’t speaking to you.

    Actually, no, since this thread has gotten quite old, not much interest in it: he doesn’t have to answer, nor you for him. Have a good day. Bye.

  • The Rapture / an essay

    06/15/2015 7:47:11 PM PDT · 142 of 157
    sasportas to MHGinTN

    Eschatological - “approved” watching and waiting for Christ’s return.