[MHGinTN]

You jumped into this discussion by my invitation/ping to you. We aren't interested in the chips on your shoulders. The essay I linked to states clearly: "It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was "heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem."

The first time you tried your condescension on me was with the little essay I posted regarding the Rapture. Your plea then was that no such event was ever even discussed until Darby in the 1830s. Sorry, that was shown false EVEN by this Pseudo-Ephraem sermon. Whether you wish to hold to a post trib rapture or not is your prerogative. I'm not going to even acknowledge the chips on your shoulders. I will discuss the items in the sermon more properly attributed to 'Pseudo-Ephraem' (since the earliest manuscript the German writer found dated to the late 500s, IIRC).

[sasportas]

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.