Posted on 10/11/2022 6:45:52 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
——>No. If the best you can do is mischaracterize every Protestant who disagrees with you, then you’re not helping your case much.
Not a mischaracterization. Ask any PTR believer who has posted on this thread, say for example, MHGinTN. Remember that information I posted in post 23? They either flat out deny it or refuse to talk about it. The latter describes MHG (courtesy ping). Will he even acknowledge that all but one ECF states that the RESTRAINER OF THE ANTICHRIST was PAGAN ROME? No. Will he acknowledge that Daniel 7 CLEARLY states that the little horn power (Antichrist power) comes out of the 4th beast, which is PAGAN ROME? No, he will not. He and most of the rest will not discuss any of it, simply because it directly contradicts their precious PTR doctrine, which states that the RESTRAINER is the Holy Spirit, and that the Antichrist shows up After the Rapture. That is a direct contradiction to bible Prophecy. That is Futurism. The Reformers were Historicists. They told the Catholic church to take a hike with their Futurism/rapture theory.
No, certainly not a Mischaracterization. Protestant denial that the Antichrist power was the Papacy started with the false PTR doctrine, which was started by the CATHOLIC CHURCH. That is a historical fact and they won’t even admit to that or even discuss it.
If the Foo defecates...
You all have it wrong.
“Who do you say that I am?”
He was talking about revelation. The Word of Truth
That is the rock of which he spoke
If the “End Times” is near, then the the LATTER-day Saints MUST be the right ones to follow!
Got Scripture for this 'in place of' thing?
Pan indeed!
There is enough verse(s) to support all three other versions.
Not too certain he has a permit though.
If you have the time, would you two also chime in on these questions of mine in post 80?
I’m trying to understand the Jewish mindset of the then-thinking Jew who would have been in the presence of, and heard, the Lord. We are looking at it after 2000 years of history. What I try to trick my mind into doing is going back 2000 years and viewing it through the disciples eyes BEFORE there was the church as we know it today. Not an easy thing when you’re an idiot like myself are.
Thank you!
——>I also believe that the tribulation will last only 5 months not 7 years after the Son of perdition appears.
The Plagues (end of the tribulation) will last 1 year according to Revelation 18:8. (the day/year bible prophecy rule).
8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
My estimate for the entire Tribulation, including the appearing of “THE” Antichrist, Mark of the Beast issue, appearance of Satan, and the last plagues, is maybe a few years. But, cut short by God’s mercy because of how terrible things will get. It’s only an estimate.
No, you want to be in the lead. The LATTER-day Saints are bringing up the rear. They're at the back of the bus.
But we believe MOST of it!
Especially that ‘call no man father’ thing.
I have a more basic question.
Why do you rapturist guys (and gals) even care about "the world's final end-time religion"? You don't think you'll be here for it anyway. Shouldn't you be more concerned about things you will actually experience or could possibly even change?
Is it end-times fear porn to scare the unconverted into a fine "Bible-believing" [sic] rapture-professing church? If so, I have news for you: any one of us could be "raptured" the old-fashioned way, in a pine box under a spray of flowers, today. Better get right with God asap, no end-times fear porn required.
They've got to be taught Before it's too late. Before they are six, or seven or eight.
You have freepmail
Reading it now and have learned much with the first few paragraphs ...
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!
It’s the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter if the words in the Book it assembled are followed - they’re still in the Book anyway.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, as usual. The opinions of a few Protestant scholars are just those (and I can cite such that oppose them) and cannot stand in the light of the supreme basis for interpretation of who this rock is, as understood by the NT church. Which understanding is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels. In which, as cited, only Christ is set forth as the rock upon which the church is built. This is simply incontrovertible, but if you want to try to show where Peter is shown and said to be that foundation, versus the object of his declaration, then be my guest. But it cannot stand.
Thus your recourse to "scholars," and which vary in quality, and linguistical arguments which never cease. However, if scholarly weight is helpful, that I will invoke Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D., who has some fitting credentials 2010-present University of Louisville Professor of Classics 1997-2010 University of Louisville Associate Professor of Classics 1991-1997 University of Louisville Assistant Professor of Classics 1990-91 University of Southern California, Lecturer in Classics 1984-90 University of California Irvine Ph.D. in Classics 1990 M.A. in Classics 1986 1982-84 Talbot Theological Seminary M.A.B.S in Hebrew Old Testament 1984, highest honors 1980-82 University of Illinois Champaign B.A. 1982, highest distinction in Classics 1975-79 United States Marine Corps final rank: Captain USMCR 1973-75 University of Illinois Chicago B.A. in History 1975, honors 1971-73 Northeastern Illinois University Books: Thucydides on War and National Character (2nd ed.: B & B 2015) Author of Illusions: Thucydides' Re-writing of the History of the Peloponnesian War (Newcastle upon Tyne 2011) Articles and Reviews: /Ichthys.com/ichthys.com/mail-Rock Rooster Cross.html..
And who, among other places, deals with this issue here (see Question #2), by the grace of God.
What you’re defending has no defense. All of your arguments have already been refuted in what I posted and linked to.
Got Scripture on this assertion?
What does the Bible say about what it takes to be Saved?
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.