What to do if you missed the Rapture

Youtube ^ | July 15, 2015 | Ed Hinson

[MHGinTN]

Here is yet more information, for those who miss the Rapture and are here after the event. This is for people, not any particular congregation of people. Please, think about it ...

[Yosemitest]

"Assuming "strong meat" is deep Spiritual truth ... "

That's a safe assumption.
Remember:

" ... seeing ye are dull of hearing.
For when for the time YE OUGHT TO BE teachers,
YE HAVE NEED THAT ONE TEACH YOU AGAIN
which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
and ARE BECOME SUCH AS HAVE NEED OF MILK,
AND NOT STRONG MEAT.
For EVERY ONE THAT USETH MILK IS UNSKILFUL IN THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS:
for he is a babe.
But STRONG MEAT BELONGETH TO THEM THAT ARE OF FULL AGE,
even those who
by reason of use
have their senses exercised TO DISCERN
BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. "

As far as "salt", read what the Matthew Henry's Commentary » Matthew » Chapter 5 » Verses 13–16 has to say about it.

[verga]

This thread is the single best argument against Sola Scriptura I have ever read. Pre, Mid, Post, Tribulation. Early judgment, mid judgment, late judgment. White throne is the same as the general, but not the particular, but maybe it is the same as the particular, but not he general.

Rapture appears in the Bible, unless you have this translation, but it really means something else. The ones taken up are the saved ones, but Noah and Lot were saved.

Time for the popcorn.

[Cvengr]

Great posts. Great insight. Thanks.

[Yosemitest]

Don't thank me, for one greater than I ... schooled me on these things.
Pass them along to others, who are locked into the "... commandments of men, that turn from the truth. "

[metmom]

This thread is the single best argument against Sola Scriptura I have ever read. Pre, Mid, Post, Tribulation. Early judgment, mid judgment, late judgment. White throne is the same as the general, but not the particular, but maybe it is the same as the particular, but not he general.

Romans 14:1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

Not a shred of the debate affects the salvation of the person. It is no argument at all against sola Scriptura. The most is shows is the level of spiritual maturity, not a case against the authority of Scripture.

When every single last Catholic on the planet agrees lockstep with each other and what the Catholic church teaches, if they can figure out what that even is, then get back to us about not agreeing with each other.

[Elsie]

The present Trump...

[Elsie]

They do ALL fit...

I see your point...

[Elsie]

‘87?

I thought only smoke signals would work back then!

[Elsie]

I wonder if Paul was critical of Peter for the duration, or just for that one issue?

I've read that if Paul got ticked atcha; he held onto it for a LONG time!

Acts 15:36-41

[Elsie]

Indeed!

[Elsie]

I would sure hate to be accused of doing something wrong if my jurors would not require witnesses.

What a concept!

[Elsie]

In any case, call the man of lawlessness what you want, but he certainly is anti-Christ. just make sure it's biblical.

[Elsie]

you posted the text in Latin and didn’t even see ‘rapiemur’?

A lot of 'text' is posted that some folks apparently do not see things in.

[Elsie]

I refuse to own a phone that is smarter than me.

I had one of those...

[Elsie]

Them whippersnappers really get schooled!

[Elsie]

I just found out that my old Samsung phone will STILL work by connecting to someone elses WIFI signal!

[Elsie]

This thread is the single best argument against Sola Scriptura I have ever read. Pre, Mid, Post, Tribulation. Early judgment, mid judgment, late judgment. White throne is the same as the general, but not the particular, but maybe it is the same as the particular, but not he general.

Where does YOUR chosen church stand on each of these issues?

[Elsie]

When every single last Catholic on the planet agrees lockstep with each other

Now Mom; you KNOW that they'll all have time in purgatory to learn the REAL truth.

[avenir]

Peter DID do what he was accused of. He drew back from eating with the Gentiles because he feared the circumcision party when they rolled into town. This was not in line with the truth of the gospel in that there is no longer any dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile because God in Christ made one new man out of the two.

Paul rebuked Peter publicly because it was that serious, Matthew 18 does not apply in this case. We’re not dealing with a private wrong but a public error by an apostle. Clearly God used Paul here to correct Peter. My sense is that Peter received it as from God.

In his defense of his God-given authority, Paul builds a case in which this event is one of the proofs. For some reason you don’t accept that God shows no partiality and WILL rebuke an apostle who seemed to be a pillar to many, but is really just a man needling correction from time to time as we all do.

[verga]

Do not go gentle into that good night

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.