Posted on 09/25/2013 8:27:57 PM PDT by WXRGina
AMEN to that.
Those who are Christian, followers of Jesus who are around when it all happens are all going to suffer, you confirm then there will not be a rapture as some Christians claim.
As I have said, it will be faithful from the global south Christian faith communities who will be bringing back the good news of the Gospel of Jesus to America and to the west.
Thanks, Alamo-Girl, but these people are deaf, dumb, and blind.
They refuse to see that their whole way of thinking and believing is a precariously stacked house of cards that will come tumbling down right on top of them.
The phrase “none so blind as those who will not see” is so appropriate here!
Major prayer for spiritual blindness to be lifted is necessary.
God bless you,
jodyel
P.S. As an aside, my mother told me she witnessed the death of a friend’s mother, who was Roman Catholic, at her deathbed. She said it was a very hard death with much gasping and labored breathing and much fear. She said the fear in the room was palpable. She said right then she knew that the woman had never accepted Jesus as her Savior and was not going to be with Him.
Contrast that to the deaths of believers in Christ who die peacefully. My own grandmother told me a story of when her mother died. She said she and her sister were standing in front of the coffin weeping. Just above the coffin a voice spoke and said, “Don’t grieve for her. She is with Me now.”
And my father’s cousin, Charles, who died of colon cancer had been drifting in and out of consciousness for about three days before his death. My dad and another family member were sitting with him in the hospital room when he suddenly said, “Who is that man?” They looked at each other and there was only the two of them...they saw no other man and told him so. Charles then said, “That’s okay...it is Jesus.” And the next day he died peacefully.
So I say to all you Catholics out there who think you know it all and are saved, then you’d better rethink what you have been told and believed all these years because it is a lie straight from the pits of hell. And Satan won’t be behind you or anywhere else but right on top of you dragging you down with him.
And it serves me no purpose whatsoever to come here and lie to you. If I were lying, I would not even bother at all because frankly some of you are so obnoxious I’d rather not spend eternity with you. But personal feelings aside, I come because I love Christ and I must obey Him. So I say again, open your eyes and get out of this demonic religion called Catholicism and be born again into the true body of Christ, so that when you die your loved ones may also hear, “Do not grieve for them, they are with Me.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Rapture-Second-Coming.html
Buckle up, babies, if you think the Rapture happens after the tribulation cause you are in for one hell of a bumpy ride!!
And since Catholic doctrine is all about falsehood, it does not surprise me you got this wrong too. You guys really are playing with fire....good thing true believers are here to set you straight so you don’t end up playing with it for eternity. However, you are required to HEAR...something none of you like to do.
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Rapture-Second-Coming.html
Question: “What is the difference between the Rapture and the Second Coming?”
Answer: The rapture and the second coming of Christ are often confused. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a scripture verse is referring to the rapture or the second coming. However, in studying end-times Bible prophecy, it is very important to differentiate between the two.
The rapture is when Jesus Christ returns to remove the church (all believers in Christ) from the earth. The rapture is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. Believers who have died will have their bodies resurrected and, along with believers who are still living, will meet the Lord in the air. This will all occur in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye. The second coming is when Jesus returns to defeat the Antichrist, destroy evil, and establish His millennial kingdom. The second coming is described in Revelation 19:11-16.
The important differences between the rapture and second coming are as follows:
1) At the rapture, believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the second coming, believers return with the Lord to the earth (Revelation 19:14).
2) The second coming occurs after the great and terrible tribulation (Revelation chapters 6–19). The rapture occurs before the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 3:10).
3) The rapture is the removal of believers from the earth as an act of deliverance (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 5:9). The second coming includes the removal of unbelievers as an act of judgment (Matthew 24:40-41).
4) The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). The second coming will be visible to all (Revelation 1:7; Matthew 24:29-30).
5) The second coming of Christ will not occur until after certain other end-times events take place (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matthew 24:15-30; Revelation chapters 6–18). The rapture is imminent; it could take place at any moment (Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54).
Why is it important to keep the rapture and the second coming distinct?
1) If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, believers will have to go through the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 3:10).
2) If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, the return of Christ is not imminent—there are many things which must occur before He can return (Matthew 24:4-30).
3) In describing the tribulation period, Revelation chapters 6–19 nowhere mentions the church. During the tribulation—also called “the time of trouble for Jacob” (Jeremiah 30:7)—God will again turn His primary attention to Israel (Romans 11:17-31).
The rapture and second coming are similar but separate events. Both involve Jesus returning. Both are end-times events. However, it is crucially important to recognize the differences. In summary, the rapture is the return of Christ in the clouds to remove all believers from the earth before the time of God’s wrath. The second coming is the return of Christ to the earth to bring the tribulation to an end and to defeat the Antichrist and his evil world empire.
Recommended Resource: Three Views on the Rapture by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., ed..
AMEN! Maranatha, Lord Jesus!
smvoice
“There are many others, but I submit that a Pope, being mortal, fleshly, is prone to the same sins as any other man. How many times did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees as hypocrites when they did one thing, yet instructed others not to do what they did? How then, can such Popes be ‘infallible’ in matters of ‘morals’?”
Own a really good dictionary? Open it up. Look up “impeccable” in regard to sin. Then look up “infallible” in regard to doctrine. See the difference?
Here, let me help you:
Impeccable: you’ll discover that a man who is impeccable in regard to sin can’t sin. No one claims the pope can’t sin.
Infallible: you’ll discover that a man, the pope, can be infallible in regard to doctrine, only under certain circumstances, and that it has nothing to do with impeccability at all.
here is something else to help you:
Infallibility versus Impeccability
One of the most commonly-leveled charges against the Catholic Church is based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is important to understand what this doctrine means, and what it does not.
Papal infallibility means that the pope, when pronouncing definitively and dogmatically on matters of faith and morals is protected from teaching errors. This protection comes from the Holy Spirit and was promised by Jesus Christ when He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to teach them all truth. The pope only enjoys this special protection when he is speaking in union with the other bishops (the successors of the Apostles) as the successor to Saint Peter (the leader of the Apostles).
This is what infallibility means, but there are many things which it does not mean, although a number of non-Catholics would like it to mean this – as these things are easy to argue against!
Firstly, infallibility is not the ability to always be right or know the correct answer to a matter of history, science or some academic discipline. Although the popes are generally very well-educated men their intellects are not perfect, and they are capable of having gaps in their knowledge or of making mistakes. Thus, if a pope were to say that two plus two is five this would not mean that, for Catholics, two plus two equals five. It would mean that the pope has to take some more math lessons! The pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith or morals – he is not always right and the Holy Spirit does not “teach him all truth” when it comes to academic matters.
Secondly, infallibility is only conferred on papal pronouncements which are solemnly and dogmatically defined, and does not apply to remarks made by the pope as a private individual, or even as a priest, the bishop of Rome or the pope. Only when he speaks as the pope ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” - meaning that he is formally defining something as infallible) is infallibility invoked. Such instances are very rare indeed – far rarer than many non-Catholics think.
Thirdly, and most importantly, infallibility should not be confused with impeccability. Impeccability is best defined as being sinless, or never making a moral mistake – Jesus and Mary were impeccable, for example. As we read in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. We read in the Gospels how Peter himself sinned by denying Christ, and in Acts how he fell short of his own teaching regarding eating with gentiles and had to be rebuked by Paul. But infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing, and Jesus never promised that the pope would be impeccable. The number of times Jesus speaks of there being sinners in the Church (such as the tares among the wheat, or the bad fish in the catch) should be enough to make this clear.
In point of fact, it is interesting to note that the bad popes stand out precisely because there are so few of them – out of over 250 popes, only a handful can be shown as being examples of “bad popes”. This, of course, does not prove infallibility, but is interesting as it shows that so few popes have been “bad”.
There are a number of specific cases which are cited where popes are shown to have disagreed with each other, or seem to have changed their minds or taught something else. Each and every one of these cases can be shown to be either a complete falsehood, or a misunderstanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Most of the time, the pope was not speaking on a matter of faith or morals, or was simply not solemnly defining something, but was simply speaking as a private individual rather than ex cathedra. There is no space to speak of each and every case here – but we will quote from Robert Knox in a letter to Arnold Lunn, speaking of the very few cases of “non-infallible” popes;
“Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!”
Although this is hardly a totally solid argument, it should certainly give pause for thought. After 2000 years of the Catholic Church, there should be more than a few alleged failures which are not very clear cut at all!
The favorite argument of the non-Catholics is one which we will touch on briefly, and have in fact mentioned above. It concerns the first pope, Saint Peter, and his not eating with the gentile converts. This is mentioned in Galatians 2:11-14; Saint Paul says that he corrected and rebuked Peter. Surely, the argument goes, if Saint Peter were not infallible, then how could he be the first pope (if the pope is infallible) or, if Saint Peter were the first pope and was not infallible, how could all the other popes be infallible?
This argument is easy to refute by a close reading of the text. It is made very clear in the Scripture that Saint Peter did not in fact teach or solemnly define something which was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite – Saint Peter had argued that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together – but he just wasn’t living up to his own teaching! Saint Paul rebuked him not for an error in teaching, but rather for hypocrisy. This is a clear – and probably the first – example of infallibility versus impeccability.
Those people who deny papal infallibility often do so not out of a desire to understand it, but rather out of a belief that it is something it is not. This is called the “straw man” argument, as it involves setting up a false argument and then defeating that. The argument does not put up a fight and is, therefore, a “straw man”. Catholics do not believe the pope is omniscient or that he is impeccable. We believe he is, generally speaking, a wise man and a good man. But we also believe that he is infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals which he solemnly pronounces.
This is entirely in accord with the Scriptures – as we read in the great Petrine defense of Matthew 16:18, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church will last forever – but how can she last forever if her teaching is in danger of being corrupted and changed? Then she would not be Christ’s Church. If the Church is to endure forever, protection of her doctrines and teachings must be invested in something or someone. As Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, it is clear this protection is invested in the pope, Saint Peter’s successors.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4i.htm
Good comment and i agree, but i think the Present pope actually sees what is going on in the Church and the Pope excommunicated an Australian priest who was pro gay-marriage.
And does any one doubt that he has read Revelation 17?.
I too don,t want to sound like a broken record but if the Catholic Church is the great harlot then it is almost certain that the protestant Churches are her daughters, so almost no one wants to even admit that it exists much less talk about it.
Is Rev 17 so plain to Protestants as well as Catholics that no one wants to go there?
Someone on this thread needs to switch to decaf.
Rev. 17 is not the problem with Catholics. It is Rev. 12 and their belief that the Catholic Church is THAT woman. They deny that that woman is Israel and see herself as the woman clothed with the sun.
Rev. 17 is not the problem with Catholics. It is Rev. 12 and their belief that the Catholic Church is THAT woman. They deny that that woman is Israel and see herself as the woman clothed with the sun.
Thanks for the evidence.
The mask slips away, the veil is pulled back.
Thank you. Catholics here need to see exactly what you're all about so they don't fall prey to your kind.
If I recall dispensationalist theory, isn’t the Holy Spirit removed after the Rapture? If so, how can anyone be saved? With no indwelling of the Holy Spirit to lead, how can any be saved? The 144,000 from the twelve tribes who preach, must be preaching in vain, as no one can be saved. A ‘pre-trib rapture’ suggests that Jesus Second Coming is actually His ‘second and a half’, or third coming, due to the ‘pre-trib rapture’. FWIW, after some study, I lean toward a partial-preterist view, that much of Revelation has occured and we are awaiting the return of Jesus. Let us assume that 25% of self described Christians are actually in the Lord, therefore, ‘raptured’. All of a sudden, 550 MILLION people disappear. The disappearance of 8% of the earth’s population would not go unnoticed.
In any event, when we vehemently attack each other’s viewpoint, are we not doing the work of Satan? The unchurched see Christians circling up and forming an inward-aiming firing squad. When we tear each other apart in public, the unchurched see no difference between a Christian and ‘the World’, so many who might come to Jesus, don’t.
Jesus knew that man, blessed with a very finite mind, in trying to understand and explain God, (infinite wisdom, love, knowledge, etc.), would add his (man’s) ‘spin’ on God. That is why Jesus kept Salvation so simple. So simple that even a repentant thief, executed next to Jesus, could be saved with no ‘works’ on his part. It is mankind that has added to His doctrine.
The Holy Spirit is never removed from this earth. He is ministering to the tribulation saints.
This is why we need a relationship with out savior and not a church!
...and I feel fine.
What about the “silly notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity”?
That's making it personal, judging another's soul. I suggest you refrain from such on the Religion Forum, and in real life.
Wow. Talk about making it personal. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.