Rapture (caught-up)
Comments
-
Ken McGuire said:George Somsel said:V. Sirois said:
Full-Preterism is the only eschatological view that truly keeps with a Grammatico-Historical Hermeneutic of Scripture.
It is sad to say, but all those that believe in a "future-to-us" second coming and resurrection, will ultimately die without ever seeing it come to pass - that's because we are reading someone elses [sic] mail (first century believers) and all prophecy was fulfilled by 70a.d.I find this statement rather interesting. It is certainly at odds with much of the forum with regard to the scriptures—it would appear to not be so "useful for teaching, for reproof …" if it is simply "someone else's mail." Even though my view of scripture differs somewhat from many of the members here, I attach greater importance to it than simply "someone else's mail." What else would we then consider to be "someone else's mail"? Isaiah, Hosea, Paul's Epistle to the Romans? Where does this lead?
And this point (to me at least) seems a valid critique of MANY approaches to the Bible and especially Revelation. If it is all about things that happened in the 1st Century, it isn't really for us. And yet it is just about truths for the "end times", then in what way is it for those who died in Christ? And so to me at least, it seems like we are driven by the text to read it in ways that give meaning to it both now AND then
Precisely correct.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Ken ... that's exactly what the Teacher of Righteousness taught!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
[Y]Ken McGuire said:And this point (to me at least) seems a valid critique of MANY approaches to the Bible and especially Revelation. If it is all about things that happened in the 1st Century, it isn't really for us. And yet it is just about truths for the "end times", then in what way is it for those who died in Christ? And so to me at least, it seems like we are driven by the text to read it in ways that give meaning to it both now AND then
0 -
Thanks for the reply Milford.
I will check out these books-some look interesting.
Thanks again
0 -
I enjoyed reading the responses on this thread.
As for the title of this thread, and the content of an early comment, though the term "Rapture" does not occur in the KJV English Bible, yet the Greek word which it represents as it occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, is there rendered "caught up." Since the meeting occurs "in the clouds" to meet the Lord in the air, that certainly says enough in context to indicate the movement is upward.
I happened upon this thread today while waiting for my newest Logos 5 resource, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, in three volumes, was being "indexed." That took 20 minutes. Reading all these interesting posts, especially those by the Preterists, took much longer than that.
I personally believe that the work by George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, is most helpful. I commend its careful study.
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I personally believe that the work by George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, is most helpful. I commend its careful study.
I have not read this but it was released today.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I enjoyed reading the responses on this thread.
As for the title of this thread, and the content of an early comment, though the term "Rapture" does not occur in the KJV English Bible, yet the Greek word which it represents as it occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, is there rendered "caught up." Since the meeting occurs "in the clouds" to meet the Lord in the air, that certainly says enough in context to indicate the movement is upward.
I happened upon this thread today while waiting for my newest Logos 5 resource, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, in three volumes, was being "indexed." That took 20 minutes. Reading all these interesting posts, especially those by the Preterists, took much longer than that.
I personally believe that the work by George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, is most helpful. I commend its careful study.
Peace, Jerome! *smile* Thank you for contributing to the "sharings" on this thread. You may want to share this post on FaithLife at https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity
... and ... then, again ... You may not! *smile* I also, with Bruce and others, received Peters' book today; however, I haven't had a chance to peruse it as of yet! Blessings!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
I have read this work by Peters at least three times through. I have read it aloud to my family twice through.
This is without question one of the greatest works on Bible prophecy ever written. Peters examines alternate viewpoints most carefully, and answers mistaken positions with grace and kindness.
I had come to the Logos Forums to try to learn how to submit corrections for typos I find in Logos 5 books and resources. But I saw this discussion on the rapture first, and made my brief comment.
I have now learned how to submit corrections to Logos. I have a pile of them to submit!
Peters is a long "read." It is worth every minute you can manage to give to it.
It is my belief after reading numerous authors on the subject (I have a large bookcase in my living room by my reading chair with a whole library of works on prophetic subjects), I find Peters to be the most helpful. He is not always correct--no human author is--but his lifetime of scholarly study sheds much light on many issues.
I often think to myself, if modern or contemporary authors on all sides could have the benefit of studying Peters thoroughly before commencing their writing on prophetic subjects, a lot of mistaken notions would be nipped in the bud.
You may recall that I am the author/editor of a major Logos resource, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, a book of extensive cross references to almost every verse in the Bible.
0 -
For a correction of the many misunderstandings found here, I would recommend "The Last Things" by George Eldon Ladd, which is available in Logos. That is my opinion. 'Nuff said.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Peace, Jerome! *smile* Thanks for identifying yourself! Much-appreciated indeed!
I actually didn't remember you until you mentioned it; then, I remembered your post from "older" days ...
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/53608/391355.aspx#391355
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I enjoyed reading the responses on this thread.
I must confess, it did get interesting.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I've had Ladd's volume since it first came out and have read it carefully. It surely is a shorter work than Peters!
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I have read this work by Peters at least three times through. I have read it aloud to my family twice through.
Jerome, thank you for posting the reference to this resource. I have downloaded a public domain copy of this and intend to take a look at it when I have time later this week.
At first glance, I see Propositions 58, 70, and 87 as suspect from a Biblical standpoint. I will be looking first at these portions to see what Biblical texts the author uses to support these propositions. If there are sound Biblical proofs here it may be a challenge to my view. But I suspect that there will not be. Either way, thanks for the reference [Y]
0 -
John, you are in for a real treat in Bible study! You have shown great insight in selecting Propositions 58, 70, and 87 for review.
I just checked those this morning using my new Logos 5 edition first received yesterday.
May I offer a study suggestion or two. (1) Read carefully and thoroughly. (2) Do look up the Bible references Peters gives (an advantage for the Logos software). (3) Make sure to study all his footnotes, as that is often where he puts the "meat" of his Bible exposition. (4) Though it at first seems a tedious process, when Peters refers to other "Propositions" where related discussions are to be found, consulting these is usually most helpful.
Blessings on you regardless of the outcome of your study!
0 -
First, I'll say that I have a good minister friend who holds to the preterist views, and I respect him greatly.
But this guy at the following web site makes some of the best arguments I've seen to support the futurist viewpoint. http://www.letusreason.org/proph19.htm
Here are just a few interesting points he makes. Irenaeus, who lived from 120-202 AD said that John's vision was toward the end of Domitian's reign, which would have put it after 70AD. Polycarp, who was actually a disciple of John, implied that the book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Also, he points out that a lot of the early church fathers and writings in the early 2nd century believed that the apocalypse was yet to come.
With that in mind, the preterist view was most likely invented by a Jesuit named Alcasar in the early 1500's to counter the Reformer's claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the Great Whore of Babylon.
Obviously, some of what Jesus was talking about in Matt. 24 happened in 70AD. The problem with that passage is that Jesus brought up the fact that the temple would be demolished, but his disciples asked about the end of the age, which is a different subject. So Jesus transitioned from talking about the subject that He brought up to the subject of the end of the age. Some preterists claim that the abomination of desolation was Antiochus Epiphanes, but his story was before Jesus. Plus, Jesus said, "
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory."I haven't heard of that happening yet. Obviously not everything prophesied has happened.
About the argument that "harpazo" doesn't refer to going up, just read it in context. One of the main verses we get that idea from is 1 Thess. 4:17, which says that we will be caught up in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air.
Sorry. I'm done now. Like I said, there are a lot of preterists that I respect. And they have good arguments, too.
Edit: I didn't realize that there were more than one page. So if my post is redundant, I apologize.
0 -
Let us remember that we are to talk about Logos's products on these forums - not theology.
0 -
Tom, I trust that if you have any possible reference to what I have posted anywhere above, you reconsider your statement.
Certainly I have been talking about the marvelous new resource I received yesterday from Logos Software, Peters' three-volume work on Bible prophecy, The Theocratic Kingdom.
May I kindly suggest you study that volume in detail in the manner I suggested above. You will be delighted at what you will learn from Scripture if you do!
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
John, you are in for a real treat in Bible study! You have shown great insight in selecting Propositions 58, 70, and 87 for review.
I already finished looking at Proposition 58. I found that the author had no scripture to back up his claim. Instead, he relies on other commentators opinions.
The claim is: Proposition 58 "Jesus, toward the close of his ministry, preached that the Kingdom was not nigh."
There is no scripture to back up this claim. The best that any commentator could do is to make an argument from silence, and even that is difficult because if the previous teaching of Jesus regarding timing were later to be changed, that would mean he had taught falsehood earlier.
At this point, There is no need for me to study this author further, as the rest of his teaching will be building upon his incorrect conclusion here.
0 -
Jason D. Cupp said:
With that in mind, the preterist view was most likely invented by a Jesuit named Alcasar in the early 1500's to counter the Reformer's claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the Great Whore of Babylon.
As a preterist, I can honestly say that this is one of the most frequently heard false statements about the preterist view.
These men were all preterists: Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – 215), Origen (c. 184 – 254), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 339). Just to name a few.
The reason that statements such as this can be so frequently repeated is that most people are not interested in learning the truth.
The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.
If that isn't a partial preterist view, then what is it?
As to your other points, R.C. Sprouls "Last days" is a good place to start. Available in this collection.
0 -
Jason D. Cupp said:
Sorry. I repent.tom said:Let us remember that we are to talk about Logos's products on these forums - not theology.
Don't forget the sackcloth and ashes. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Please, Guys and Gals! Please don't keep on persisting with cheap shots! OK?
If you want to debate and make your point, there is a place for that. Divine Soteriology (Blair! *smile*) has invited those who wish to debate ... https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity
Psalm 29:11
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Lol. Nice use of a resource to make your post relevant. [:)]John said:As to your other points, R.C. Sprouls "Last days" is a good place to start. Available in this collection.
And thanks for pointing those things out, by the way.
0 -
John, both you and I made fast work of Proposition 58 in Peters.
Yet Proposition 58 is abundantly proven from Scripture, starting with Matthew 21:43. It is even a fulfillment of explicit Bible prophecy found in Micah 5:3. Using my study resource available in Logos 5, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, you can find many additional Scripture passages given in the form of cross references which tie into this interesting theme. If you studied what Peters gives as Biblical proof, you will have noted he discusses in detail the interesting change in the nature and content of the later parables Jesus gave. Peters discusses each of the pertinent parables in detail. I noted with interest that Peters remarks about the testimony of a then well-known commentator on the parables of Christ who was stunned by the implications of one of the parables, and who changed his opinion as a result about issues pertaining to Bible prophecy. I think the author was Grenfeld or something similar. You'll see it when you read Peters carefully.
As for Peters relying on other commentators opinions, you have unwittingly missed the point. Peters throughout his volumes carefully cites the leading scholarship of his day and those before him who disagreed with him, showing they unguardedly at other points admitted the validity of evidence contrary to their own stated views, evidence which proves the validity of Peters' position. When you can get a presumed opponent of your position to solidly back your position on an important point, your opponent becomes a valuable witness to the validity of your position on that point. Peters often uses the inadvertent concessions of his opponents to good effect. I recall especially that Peters throughout his volumes points out the inconsistencies of Albert Barnes, one of the great commentators he frequently cites.
I invite you to actually read and study carefully study Proposition 70, the second Proposition you selected for study.
I carefully read Proposition 70 myself yesterday morning and found that is where the Biblical evidence is carefully set forth by Peters.
I urge anyone who has an interest in the broad subject of Bible prophecy to secure the Logos edition of Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom. I have been delighted so far with the quality of this digital edition.
I was afraid that having a digital edition of The Theocratic Kingdom would be impractical for reading such an extended text. But I have found already that having the text for reading on computer screen where I can adjust the size of the print is a great advantage for older eyes!
I have been reading Peters carefully and repeatedly since 1962. I have never found a single mention in his work of the Rapture, at least not using that term. The term does not occur in his extensive index. I seem to recall that the word may occur in a citation from another author cited by Peters, but I don't recall where. My next little test of Logos 5 software may be to see if I can find the word in a citation used by Peters. That will be an interesting search, if I can figure out how to do it.
It is my firm belief that no one, layman or scholar, has done their homework in the field of understanding Bible prophecy, particularly the Kingdom of God, who has not carefully read this important work by George N. H. Peters.
I know of one former Jehovah's Witness who decided to take a year or so to study the Bible independent of his Watchtower resources. He also learned of Peters' work, and as a result of these studies, realized that what he had former believed as a Jehovah's Witness regarding God's Kingdom was not in accord with Scripture. As a result he was converted to Christ. You can read Kevin Quick's testimony on the Internet.
Now I would perhaps be the last person on earth who would recommend any human author over the Scripture itself. I believe the truths discussed by Peters can indeed be learned from the Bible itself, if one were to study the subjects involved in the Bible using cross references. Yet even the Ethiopian in Acts 8 found it advantageous to have the help of Philip to understand Isaiah 53.
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
Now I would perhaps be the last person on earth who would recommend any human author over the Scripture itself. I believe the truths discussed by Peters can indeed be learned from the Bible itself, if one were to study the subjects involved in the Bible using cross references. Yet even the Ethiopian in Acts 8 found it advantageous to have the help of Philip to understand Isaiah 53.
I am happy to hear you say this. I was afraid you were placing Peters on a lofty pedestal with your high praise of his work. (I am often misunderstood by others for doing the same thing with other authors like Francis Schaeffer* or Norman Geisler.)
*It is a real bummer that the Works of Francis Schaeffer are not currently available in Logos. I have them but others should too.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Thank you, Super Tramp. I do like to commend resources I have found helpful. Just checking now, I do have the complete works of Francis Schaeffer and many works of Norman Geisler in my Logos 5 software. I have them in hard copy as well. Schaeffer to me is outstanding in that he foresaw very accurately back in the 1960s or 1970s where society was heading. In particular, he warned, as I recall, that we would no longer be able to coast on the fumes of a remaining culture of belief and respect for the Bible considered as the norm. He surely was right. Geisler, of course, is very good in the field of apologetics. I have benefited greatly from both these authors, and am thankful to have them in Logos 5 software too.
I just did a test run with Logos 5 software and searched all three volumes of Peters for the term "rapture." Zero results reported. I used another word to perform a similar search to be sure I was doing it right and came up with a great many results. So, thank you Logos, you confirmed that my memory was accurate regarding what is and what is not in Peters, in this instance anyway!
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Please, Guys and Gals! Please don't keep on persisting with cheap shots! OK?
If you want to debate and make your point, there is a place for that. Divine Soteriology (Blair! *smile*) has invited those who wish to debate ... https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity
Not to belabor the point, Milford, but as you know and have posted elsewhere, Faithlife is practically useless for any extended discussion due to the unfortunate inclusion of a Twitter-like word limit that prevents participants from presenting a coherent progression of thought before being unceremoniously cut off in mid sent
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
ence. This annoyance keeps people from using Faithlife for the purpose it intended to serve. If Logos wants to push theological discussions to that forum, then it needs to be an actual FORUM. The current design does nothing to help draw users and keep them there. This is one reason, I suspect, that users keep using the Forum for such discussions, because participants are allowed to complete their thoug
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
ts without resorting to irritating workarounds.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
... that prevents participants from presenting a coherent progression of thought before being unceremoniously cut off in mid sent
Obviously a mid-tribber ... [:#]
0 -
David Paul said:
ence. This annoyance keeps people from using Faithlife for the purpose it intended to serve. If Logos wants to push theological discussions to that forum, then it needs to be an actual FORUM. The current design does nothing to help draw users and keep them there. This is one reason, I suspect, that users keep using the Forum for such discussions, because participants are allowed to complete their thoug
David Paul said:ence. This annoyance keeps people from using Faithlife for the purpose it intended to serve. If Logos wants to push theological discussions to that forum, then it needs to be an actual FORUM. The current design does nothing to help draw users and keep them there. This is one reason, I suspect, that users keep using the Forum for such discussions, because participants are allowed to complete their thoug
Peace, David! You DO have a point, eh??? *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
You guys have nice and valid points. I was over there (FaithLife) and could not post an interesting letter from a friend.
I was talking to my friend about 1 John 2:1-2. Basically it's about "believers" repenting in prayer to Christ. He sent me a letter and I wasn't sure how to answer it. I don't think it has anything to do with theology-but its a mind cruncher.
Here's the letter:
Dear Dan:I believe it is important why I so adamantly oppose the interpretation of 1 John 1:9 that teaches that Christians have a sin account upon which their post-salvation sins accumulate, causing God to turn away from the Christian (broken fellowship, can't use you in His ministry to the lost, and if you partake of the Lord's Supper with even one un-confessed sin on your account you damn yourself to hell).That single verse - if you remove it from the context - says that God will forgiven your sins (not just the one you confess) and cleanse you from all unrighteousness IF you will confess your sins (plural).How many times in the life of a person are their sins forgiven and they are cleansed from all unrighteousness? The answer is, ONLY ONCE - AT THE CROSS BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. But the way Confessionists use that verse is to tell Pew-Sitters that their life consists of periods of being in-fellowship and out-of-fellowship, depending on whether they have effectively confessed every sin on their account.What this does to the Pew-Sitter is make him sin-conscious rather than Christ-conscious. It forces the Pew-Sitter to do something God no longer does - impute to himself sin. The real danger is that the Pew-Sitter becomes so consumed with numbering and confessing his sins that he takes his eyes off Jesus Christ and turns them inward to getting these sins washed off his account by a proper confession.Ah - that brings up another problem for Pew-Sitters. How sincere must the confession be to get God to forgive the new sin? Can the Pew-Sitter simply close his eyes and say, "Yeah - I stole that bicycle - but only because You refused to give me one. So forgive me." I know that you would say in infatic, "No!" If I was a Confessionists, I would also say "No!" But there's a real problem. Since that verse does not say that you have to "...feel sorry and promise to do better next time..." how do you know if your confession came up to God's standard? Must there be tears? Must you have heart palpatations while you confess? Must you do like the Catholics and show a certain amount of contrition, remorse, and sorrow for your confession to be accepted?Many times in the New Testament God tells us that our sins are taken away and nailed to the cross. God no longer imputes our sins to us but rather to Jesus Christ. If we impute our sins to ourselves - the very thing God does not do - then we deny the finished work of Jesus on the cross.Emperor Constantine in 311 married the Christian church and the Roman state. His advisors told him that his sins were washed away during baptism. This puzzled him and he asked the obvious question: "If my sins are washed away during baptism, then what shall become of the sins I commit after baptism? They could not answer this question, so Constantine delayed his baptism until he was on his death bed so that he would not die with a single sin on his account. That became the Catholic confessional and has been a false curse on the church to this day. "What about the sins I commit after I am saved?"Either they were paid for in full on the cross, or they are on you. God forgives sins only one way - by Jesus' shed blood at the cross. If a Pew-Sitter insists that his sins are forgiven by confession (which is a negotiated apology) then he dehies the blood of Jesus Christ. In so doing, he creates a different Jesus.That is the real danger of the whole "Christian Bar of Soap" heresy.0 -
Daniel Presley said:
You guys have nice and valid points. I was over there (FaithLife) and could not post an interesting letter from a friend.
I was talking to my friend about 1 John 2:1-2. Basically it's about "believers" repenting in prayer to Christ. He sent me a letter and I wasn't sure how to answer it. I don't think it has anything to do with theology-but its a mind cruncher.
“Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus answered, “You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you.””
(John 13:3–10, NRSV)
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Daniel! *smile* Psalm 29:11
I think you've been around long enough to know that such a post is really out of line.
This is not a debating forum.
What are you trying to accomplish by upsetting others who are trying to use Logos Bible Software to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ???
A reminder of the Forum Guidelines. Please be responsible.
Posts 456
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
- Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
- Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
- Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Thanks for the reply and answer. I will go over my commentaries to get a fuller understanding.
Thanks Again.
0 -
Thanks Milford for our reply.
I thought that the Post was harmless. I think I was just trying to find an answer to give to my friend so that we both can grow in Christ.
However, Peace. And I will repent.
Phil,
Thanks for your post. I will make a copy and place it on my cork board-that way I will not forget.
Peace also to you..
0 -
Oh, man...there is so much I want to say about this. But I'll limit myself here because of forum rules.
Daniel Presley said:
BTW, The word RAPTURE "harpazo" in the greek never gives any inclination of direction (up), but simply means "to be seized, taken hold of, taken advantage of,.. see Theological dictionary of the new testament & New international Dictionary of N.T. Theology. If "UP" was implied, then the Greek prefix/preposition "ana" or possibly (unlikely) "ek" would be used with "harpazo" to give it direction, but they are not used.I say just this one thing. [:)] If I am standing on the ground, where are the clouds? [:O]
0 -
To Daniel and Josh! *smile* Thanks to both of you for your attitude!
... and your forbearance!
The Logos Forums are so very important to so many people and are so very helpful in so many respects.
Of course we all have strong and passionate feelings about many things, and it's hard to be always "cool," eh???
May God help us show His Love to one another! *smile*
Peace!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Jerome Smith said:
I invite you to actually read and study carefully study Proposition 70, the second Proposition you selected for study.
Ok Jerome, I will take a look at Prop 70. Once again, I will be looking for solid Biblical proof of the assertion. I did not find it for Prop 58.
As far as the parables and the Kingdom, James Stuart Russels "Parousia" (not available on Logos) is the best I have read, and I have read a lot.
0 -
Josh said:
I say just this one thing.
If I am standing on the ground, where are the clouds? 
Surely that would depend on how you define "ground" - if you were standing on the top of a mountain then they would more than likely be below you [;)]
0 -
David Carter said:Josh said:
I say just this one thing.
If I am standing on the ground, where are the clouds? Surely that would depend on how you define "ground" - if you were standing on the top of a mountain then they would more than likely be below you
Perhaps, if you were in the Himalayas.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:David Carter said:Josh said:
I say just this one thing.
If I am standing on the ground, where are the clouds? Surely that would depend on how you define "ground" - if you were standing on the top of a mountain then they would more than likely be below you
Perhaps, if you were in the Himalayas.
Rapture free zone. [:D]
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:David Paul said:
ence. This annoyance keeps people from using Faithlife for the purpose it intended to serve. If Logos wants to push theological discussions to that forum, then it needs to be an actual FORUM. The current design does nothing to help draw users and keep them there. This is one reason, I suspect, that users keep using the Forum for such discussions, because participants are allowed to complete their thoug
David Paul said:ence. This annoyance keeps people from using Faithlife for the purpose it intended to serve. If Logos wants to push theological discussions to that forum, then it needs to be an actual FORUM. The current design does nothing to help draw users and keep them there. This is one reason, I suspect, that users keep using the Forum for such discussions, because participants are allowed to complete their thoug
Peace, David! You DO have a point, eh??? *smile*
Yes, I agree.
Bohuslav
0 -
John said:Jerome Smith said:
I invite you to actually read and study carefully study Proposition 70, the second Proposition you selected for study.
Ok Jerome, I will take a look at Prop 70. Once again, I will be looking for solid Biblical proof of the assertion. I did not find it for Prop 58.
As far as the parables and the Kingdom, James Stuart Russels "Parousia" (not available on Logos) is the best I have read, and I have read a lot.
Thank you, John, for your willingness to further pursue your study of Peters. I trust that in the long run it will prove rewarding.
0
