ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So I guess that you will not be meeting the Lord in the air. Too bad for you.

1Thess 4:16-18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:(4:17) Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (4:18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words. ​

Is this passage not in your Bible? Do you have a Bible?

Well, he's in his 20s and perhaps he's unemployed and can't afford one?

 

[DAN P]

By that logic, the Rapture is vain and unnecessary. What makes you all so deserving of a rapture when everyone has always had to suffer by the world? And not only that, but pampered 1st World people who don't even know what hardship is :AMR:

It's a big joke, and the only thing you all can do is produce legal fictions of scripture just as you've been doing and are doing right now.

Hi and First , there is NO GREEK WORD for RAPTURE , so what verse are you TALKING ABOUT ??

Is it Gal 1:4 or maybe 1 Cor 15:51 or maybe 1 Thess 4:16-18 or 2 Thess 2:3 , 8 , so which one is not bible ??

dan p

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The rapture is something that people like to believe because they don't have a concept of martyrdom or tribulation- they think they aren't subject to it, and believe their vanities are blessings.

Not only is it laughable, but justice dictates that such people receive anything but a rapture.

:dizzy:

 

[Crucible]

Witness the above deception, that says NADA. Translated: Humanism=I do not understand how there could be the concept of a rapture. I cannot understand how the Lord God would have a rapture. What I do not understand, I will not believe. Thus, there is no rapture.

:rotfl:

You mean to tell me that the historical inquisitors were humanists, and that is why nobody in history ever acknowledged a 'rapture'.
That's a good one- tell it again.

The absence of a rapture is a beautiful thing, because it will correct mankind's error- make you put your money where your mouth is on what it is to be a person of real faith.

Because the way I see it, the typical Darbyist contributes nothing good to man- they rather contribute to the contrary, and expect that they will escape their own doings.

It's not just a mere rejection of a rapture, it's a very thought out one which acknowledges what you all do not. And it's why in Christian history, such a notion was never touched with a ten foot pole. It's not surprising that the belief formed right out of the modern world.

 

[DAN P]

:dizzy:

Hi and are you AVOIDING POST #502 , looks like you are !!

Is the Kitchen to HOT in post #502 ?

dan p

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hi and are you AVOIDING POST #502 , looks like you are !!

Is the Kitchen to HOT in post #502 ?

dan p

You never talked to me about it?? Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else?

 

[john w]

:rotfl:

You mean to tell me that the historical inquisitors were humanists, and that is why nobody in history ever acknowledged a 'rapture'.
That's a good one- tell it again.

Slower....I know this is quite deep, and you don't even know your own "argument:"


"What happens to the people aboard a plane when the pilots whisk away into the heavens? I guess the people on the plane don't deserve a last shot chance at redemption like the fellows on the ground. "-you

Translated: Humanism=I do not understand how there could be the concept of a rapture. I cannot understand how the Lord God would have a rapture. What I do not understand, I will not believe. Thus, there is no rapture.


That is how evolutionists dismiss the book of Genesis, and atheists dismiss the concept of hell.


Ladies, and gentlemen! May I introduce you to the humanist, evolutionist, atheist, Crucible? He talks like them-they talk like him.

 

[john w]

The absence of a rapture is a beautiful thing, because it will correct mankind's error- make you put your money where your mouth is on what it is to be a person of real faith.

Because the way I see it, the typical Darbyist contributes nothing good to man- they rather contribute to the contrary, and expect that they will escape their own doings.

It's not just a mere rejection of a rapture, it's a very thought out one which acknowledges what you all do not. And it's why in Christian history, such a notion was never touched with a ten foot pole. It's not surprising that the belief formed right out of the modern world.

Translated: Well, you see, IMO......


Sit, Oprah. You wicked humanist, and bird flipper, at the LORD God, accusing Him of unrighteousness.

 

[john w]

The rapture is something that people like to believe because they don't have a concept of martyrdom or tribulation- they think they aren't subject to it, and believe their vanities are blessings.

Not only is it laughable, but justice dictates that such people receive anything but a rapture.

Quite irrelevant.

Translated: I, crucible, do not understand how......................................, and do not like the idea of a rapture, so, it does not exist.


You talk like an evolutionist, atheist. They talk like you.

Thanks, Rambo.

 

[john w]

:rotfl:

You mean to tell me that the historical inquisitors were humanists, and that is why nobody in history ever acknowledged a 'rapture'.
.

You, to the LORD God in Matthew-John: Nobody in history ever acknowledged this "God the Father" title/concept, before you, "Jesus." Thus, there is no such thing as "God the Father."

 

[Crucible]

Translated: Well, you see, IMO......


Sit, Oprah. You wicked humanist, and bird flipper, at the LORD God, accusing Him of unrighteousness.

:blabla:

Says the person who misuses scripture to sell an idea that people will be teleported into heaven.

It's not hard to debunk the 'Rapture'- only impressionable people are duped into believing it

 

[john w]

:blabla:

Says the person who misuses scripture to sell an idea that people will be teleported into heaven.

It's not hard to debunk the 'Rapture'- only impressionable people are duped into believing it

Translated:

An atheist, to you:Says the person who misuses scripture to sell an idea that people will be resurrected from the dead.Only impressionable people are duped into believing in a resurrection, the after life, parting of the Red Sea, the blind see............................................................................................................................


You: Well, uh, err, you see....


You vile humanist-what you do not understand, you will not believe. Therefore, there is no such thing as a rapture.

Atheist do the same, to dismiss the concept of a hell, a resurrection of the body.


You talk like them-they talk like you-humanists. Different cages....same dirty birds.


Keep posting, demon-makes my job easy.

 

[DAN P]

You never talked to me about it?? Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else?

Hi and I was , sorry !!

dan p

 

[Lighthouse]

I said, "that was for God to judge."

I have Scripture that tells me they did not go to Hell.

I agree. Even though the sacrificial system took away immediate judgement, it didn't remove the condemnation from the sinner's conscience. Only the blood of Jesus can do this. However, regarding the woman in Luke 7, it further proves that there was a grace at work apart from the law, which wouldn't make sense if Jesus was an enforcer of the law.

No, the grace worked within the law, though neither by, nor through it.

Right. However, while supposedly under the Mosaic law, Jesus forgave the woman's many sins. The Mosaic law was negated, and that means that faith laid hold of something that she would have been exempt from while under the law.

He forgave her sins, not her crimes. The Law was not negated. The Law did not make anyone exempt from grace.

This is what none of you mads are understanding, or more to the point, not wanting to understand.

You're a daft little punk, aren't ya?

He did not minister both :doh:

Grace is by faith, and law is by works. Both cannot coexist.

This right here proves you're a moron.

Jesus died for all sinners, who were all under the Law. In His infinite grace He died for them, though they were already condemned.

You know how so. I explained it plain enough.

You explained it like a pot head 15 minutes after 4:20.

Just as we do today.

John 5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

If a person has everlasting life, the law can no longer have a claim on them. They are free from it's condemnation, as the woman was.

Where does the Bible say that?

One thing that should be remembered here is that the Law required the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish guilt. The witnesses all left without testifying against her. This allowed Jesus to not convict her and thereby escape the trap that the pharsiees had set for him since it was illegal under Roman rule to execute anyone without permission from the Roman authorities, all without violating the Law Himself.

Jesus was/is smarter than your average TOL participant.

Sure enough.

Do you believe when Jesus told the woman neither do I condemn you go and sin no more meant nothing ?

Did Jesus witness the adultery?

I do not ignore scripture and what you accuse me off is EXACTLY what your doing.


You IGNORE that Jesus said neither do I condemn you and :

Jhn 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus was neither a witness to the adultery or a judge or priest. He was in no position to condemn here, according to the very Law He made.

Jesus was NOT bound by the LAW HE fulfilled the requirements of the LAW.

Moses bought the LAW but GRACE and TRUTH came by Jesus Christ.

Pretty dangerous ground placing restrictions on God in the flesh i.e. Jesus.

If you believe the LAW was so perfect why did Jesus say that God NEVER intended for their to be a writ of divorce but because of the hardness of their hearts God allowed it ?

Because their hearts were not perfect.

And Jesus was bound by anything He chose to be.

This incident happened on Old Testament ground just as much as if it had taken place under Moses.

Had Christ condemned her, He would have been guilty of breaking the Law by condemning only the woman and not the absent man -- an angle the Pharisees, hypocrites that they were, would have been sure to play up to denounce Him. Therefore, He did not condemn her. HE COULDN'T.

Had Christ forgiven her (assuming she'd even wanted to be forgiven, which does not seem to be the case), He would likewise have broken the Law for pronouncing her forgiven for something which under the Law could not be forgiven but required death. Therefore He did not forgive her. HE COULDN'T.

:thumb:

Could be that Madist are blinded by the error they believe and promote. Creating a Gospel that does not exists blinds folks to the truth of the ONE true Gospel.

Thanks, I must be doing it right . If a Madist agreed with any of my posts I would have to go back and re-study the scriptures because I would be worried I compromised the truth to follow a lie.

You are so full of yourself, as well as other things.

First of all, look what I stated a couple of days ago....

So far only Lighthouse had come up with a reason why Jesus could forgive a woman's many sins, even though she was supposedly bound to the law. The reason - simply because God can do what he wants. There's no other possible explanation for the madists to come up with. And so Clete for the FIRST time in this thread has had to agree with Lighthouse, and he becomes the second person.

Only Lighthouse had pointed it out before you now.

No, I said she exercised faith, and that is why He forgave her. And He could do so under the Law because He is the Lawgiver and supersedes the Law. And yet since the Law has no relation to the forgiveness of sin then Jesus forgiving sin while under the Law is not a problem.

An incident directly involving the Law took place.

Some here very patiently cite what the Law said on the matter in order to understand it.

Andy waves off the Law as irrelevant to the discussion because it won't let him arrive at the conclusion he's already reached.

Andy smacks into the trees when he's running in the forest.

Never mind the grand issue with a rapture as far as it actually occurring.

What happens to the people aboard a plane when the pilots whisk away into the heavens? I guess the people on the plane don't deserve a last shot chance at redemption like the fellows on the ground.

They get their last shot as the plane hurtles toward the ground.

 

[patrick jane]

Never mind the grand issue with a rapture as far as it actually occurring.

What happens to the people aboard a plane when the pilots whisk away into the heavens? I guess the people on the plane don't deserve a last shot chance at redemption like the fellows on the ground.

And why would God take all of the light out of the world and not go ahead and destroy it? Who leads these 'left behind' people, and what kind of Christian would rather leave then help their loved one's behind find redemption?


These very crippling things are best just left ignored when you go preach your rapture doctrine. God would not do such a thing.

So you call Paul a liar? Which is calling Jesus Christ a liar

 

[Clete]

First of all, look what I stated a couple of days ago....



So far only Lighthouse had come up with a reason why Jesus could forgive a woman's many sins, even though she was supposedly bound to the law. The reason - simply because God can do what he wants. There's no other possible explanation for the madists to come up with. And so Clete for the FIRST time in this thread has had to agree with Lighthouse, and he becomes the second person.




Only Lighthouse had pointed it out before you now.



Nope. I dealt with this.
I said that those who sin in the law shall be judged by the law, and those who sin outside the law shall be judged outside the law.
Those who were under the law were looking forward to a hope of forgiveness, but didn't have a basis for forgiveness to cling to. And so the faith was in God providing, but because the provision had not yet come. And so the saints who died before Christ, died in faith looking forward to the provision that will remove sin once for all.

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Now, the woman in Luke 7 was forgiven, which was a privilege that no one had had before Christ.
You are saying that she could be forgiven because Jesus is God, but if she was under the law, she was under different terms and conditions regarding sin. God would have been bound to the law just as much as the woman, because the covenant was two way.
The only reason a new covenant was brought in, is because man broke the covenant, and God had a way to annul the first covenant by satisfying it's demands personally (Christ).

AND IT IS THIS THAT GAVE JESUS THE BASIS TO FORGIVE THE WOMAN. He took the condemnation her sin deserved upon himself. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Boy it's hard work talking to you guys because you put your hyperdispensationalism above the word of God, then get confused and come up with nonsense like "Jesus could do what he likes cause he's God" :doh:

Andy,

You're a liar.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Good-bye.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

MADism is akin to cultist doctrine. No need to waste a lot of time contending a belief which denies all church tradition and reports that people will be flying up into the sky before the world ends

Correct.

There us no pre-trib rapture and Madists deny all church tradition even water baptism and the gospels only apply to the Jews.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Correct.

There us no pre-trib rapture and Madists deny all church tradition even water baptism and the gospels only apply to the Jews.

LA

:rotfl:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hi and I was , sorry !!

dan p

That's okay Brother.

 

[Crucible]

So you call Paul a liar? Which is calling Jesus Christ a liar

Except Paul doesn't say there is a rapture- you all say he does, which makes you all the liar