Posted on 11/13/2011 5:02:38 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Nor your premise.
While I agree that there is much in prophecy, certain areas of the book of Revelation, for instance, that are difficult for all of us, and, as you say, left for the faithful to dig out, I fail to see this is the case when it comes to when the Lord leaves heaven.
Heb. 10:12, 13, for instance, cleary tells us when. The author of Hebrews says Jesus will stay at the right hand awaiting his enemies to be made his footstool. He isn’t leaving heaven to come to the earth and defeat his enemies (nor, 1 Thess. 4:16, descend from heaven to rapture his saints) until then.
The matter of fact way that the author of Hebrews says this indicates it must have been common knowledge among those of the first century. On the other hand, another coming some seven years prior to him leaving the right hand and descending to earth he seemed to know nothing about.
Surely you must agree that Christ’s enemies are not assembled to be put under his feet until Armageddon? This is after the tribulation. Which means he is still “expecting” his enemies to be put under his feet in pretribulation times.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything difficult to understand here. Neither is there anything cryptic or mystic about the second coming in Matt. 24. Why would Christ be cryptic about this to his disciples? whom he is leaving in charge of his affairs, the foundation of his church, till he comes again?
Not emotion ahead of faith, but faith and doctrine prior to experience and still God the Holy Spirit has the power to provide some powerful testimony, which we both agree.
Well, you just accused me, by inference, of deifying Mary the Mother of Jesus. That is a strong indication of just how off in left field you’ve wandered. Insulting me because you want to insult and ridicule Catholics is, well, stupid Quix. Perhaps you should do a meds check if that’s the level of rational thought you achieved.
How many is SOME?
I won't waste my time on this thread...
Using big letters doesn’t make your comments any less false, quix
Especially since the prophetic Scripture is unfolding just as God said it would, right in front of our eyes, the inability to see the signs Christ gave for His return is, just like you wrote, willful spiritual blindness.
As for denial of God-given Biblical doctrines like the Rapture, that's simply the natural, unredeemed man who cannot understand the things of God. Also, if Biblical doctrines like the Rapture are true, they're doomed, so they have to deny the Bible for self-deception purposes.
Bump for later read.
‘No King but Jesus’ was a foundational slogan or resistance to the tyranny of Monarchy.
Let the thrones of nepotic inbred dynasties tremble at the words in our Declaration of Independence!
What a sad sick delusional lot that would prefer the safety of chains to the hazards of freedom, may they go from us, we seek neither their arms nor their counsel - and may posterity forget that they ever were our countrymen.
The Protestant definition of faith is emotionalism. Faith isn’t feeling.
I think Jim Robinson will appreciate you posting this so that all those "Catholic Monarchists" can be brought out into the open. Several have already been banned for expressing the hope of an end to these United States of America in favor of a Roman Catholic monarchy worldwide.
The Protestant and Christian definition of faith is also belief, ...from PISTIS; emotion has nothing to do with faith. A gift from God by His grace.
>> “but that doesn’t change the fact that the modern concept of the Rapture was unheard of prior to the 1830s. Its an invention of man, an incorrect interpretation of one or two scripture verses” <<
.
So you believe that the “first resurrection” will not happen?
I suggest you watch this truthful video and see what happens when Monarchies ended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbTSFIbdK8&feature=related
The logic is both Mahoney and Law come from the crazy liberal side of the Catholic Church that adopted all things Liberal Protestant after Vatican II.
They were the ones who sucked up to Protestantism and did everything they could to emulate Protestant worship.
So I’d say they were more or less Protestant and not very Catholic.
It does in Evangelicalism. It’s seen as evidence that a person is “saved”.
The Protestant God is a constitutional monarch.
“”They were the ones who sucked up to Protestantism and did everything they could to emulate Protestant worship””
Be careful ,dear friend. It was more a case of american Bishops,clergy etc.. who did this by not following what Vatican actually said . If you read the documents of Vatican 2 you find that the american Church went against what Vatican 2 actually said.
Remember ,there was also good influence at Vatican 2 from people like Fulton Sheen, Carol Wojtyla(Pope JP2) Cardinal Ratzinger(pope Benedict XVI) and many others.
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.