Steve_S

Just for the record. There is no official position of Worthy that I know of vis-a-vis pre-trib v post-trib. I suspect that the ministry team runs the gamut in eschatological viewpoints.

On 2/19/2018 at 9:18 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Relief pitching will sort itself out.

This statement would terrify me if i were a cards fan, lol.

On 2/2/2018 at 12:51 PM, Butero said:

I generally start looking forward to the start of baseball after the Super Bowl, but this year, I haven't been as excited as in years past.  I am disgusted with how the ownership blew up the Braves to rebuild, and now we have this stupid scandal involving foreign players.  That will set them back even further.  I feel like they should have just looked at that bad finish as one of those things and made minor adjustments.  The team itself was solid.  

When Spring training rolls around, I will probably start getting excited about listening to games again on my xm radio.  That is one way I pass the time as the miles roll by in the truck.  I either listen to the Braves or my favorite American League team, the Minnesota Twins.  

I'm not really that concerned with the foreign player thing. Only two really legit prospects were lost and a couple of lottery tickets. One of those prospects has been significantly underperforming thus far and the other probably won't be a world beater. The braves still, even losing those guys, have the best (some think second best) farm system in baseball, including probably the top prospect in baseball in Acuna, and maybe 10 guys who are capable of being major league starting pitchers (not to mention a catching prospect who hit 19 homers in 96 games last season and a third base prospect with probably just as much power who is likely going to be getting his first call up this september). Most of these guys are in the 19 to 22 year old age range and some are likely to end up being very bood major league baseball players.

The rebuild, I like it. I don't think a couple of tweaks would've gotten that braves team a world series ring (the one that was blown up to start the rebuild). Where the braves are right now, probably not competitive this year, but close, and then likely being competitive in 2019, is a lot better to me than taking a couple of stabs at the playoffs with a mostly aging roster that had no really elite pitching. They are developing a solid core of young pitchers and have a legit MVP candidate hitter on their roster every year in freeman. They have a center fielder who won gold gloves in the last two years in the national league as well.

Most importantly, they have the prospects that will be necessary to trade off to actually grab the players that will be necessary to shore up the positions that turn out to need upgrades at the end of this year and into next year and going forward.

They also probably have anywhere from 40 to 60 million in budget space coming open next year with getting rid of kemp's contract and the expiration of markakis' contract.

The rebuild was rough, but we're at the end of it. A lot of elite prospects will get shots on the major league roster this year. Some won't stick, but some will, and some will probably turn out being very good to great.

This thread has been locked. Just for clarification. We do not allow videos to be posted outside of the video forum. If you post one, they will not be moved and reviewed for approval. They will be deleted immediately most of the time. Please don't post them in hopes people will get a chance to look at them before they are taken down. If it is determined that one is willfully doing this, they will be banned from the thread and could even be placed on moderator review.

This one has ran its course.

I think this one has ran its course.

1 minute ago, iamlamad said:

Suppose Paul had taught them that the rapture would come at the end of the 70th week, and then someone told them they were half way through: would they be upset? NO! They would then know they only had to hold on for another 3 1/2 years.

Yet, they WERE upset - upset enough to write to Paul. A postrib teaching by Paul would not explain that. 

One day you will have to come to grips with the fact that in 3b the man of sin IS revealed, so the one restraining has to be "taken out of the way" in 3a. Otherwise, throw verses 6-8 out of your bible.

So if you don't think the restrainer being removed is found in "apostasia" show us where else in 3a anything has departed or been removed. This is not "guess work." It is using logic with what we are given. Words have to mean something. 

It is absolutely guess work. It's based on other premises that also have no direct correlative evidence. You are making a positive claim that this is definitive and it is not. A definitive statement would look like "as though the pretrib rapture had occurred." I'm not asking you not to believe what you believe, simply saying that what you believe is not specifically delineated in the text.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

The gathering or rapture is indeed the theme of this passage, and the very reason they wrote to Paul. Paul had taught them that the rapture will come before  the Day of the Lord, and then someone came along and told them that they were IN the Day of the Lord. Of course they were upset: I would be too. 

Paul's answer is to explain to them how to know for SURE when one would be IN the day of the Lord: if they see the man of sin enter the temple and be revealed as the Beast, then all will know the DAY has started.

This is sheer guess work, basically.

2Th 2:1  Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 
2Th 2:2  not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 

It implies that they thought the day of Christ may have come. It does not expound upon that at all. Anyone can make an assumption that paul is talking about a pretrib rapture, but the bible does not say that paul is talking about a pretrib rapture.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Yes, in fact, there IS a context: the very theme of Paul's passage: His coming and the gathering of the saints. When the rapture takes place, will there be a significant "departing?" You know there will.

That is not a localized or even broad context, though. That is taking a predetermined assumption and inserting it as context, instead of the scripture speaking for itself. Apostasia is used two times in the new testament and four times in the septuagint. This is the only time where anyone claims it means "departing" and it's because a developed theological assumption requires it.

10 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

You need to look at the English translations BEFORE the 1611 KJV. Like Coverdale, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, or Wycliffe.  All since the KJV have just copied it.

Except that all of the bibles since the KJV have not copied it, only the YLT and NKJV have directly translated it as "falling away." Most translate it as apostacy or rebellion. The actual definition of the greek word is more in line with "forsake" or "defect."

Ultimately, you can use "departed" and equate that with forsake or defect. There is no context in which that word simply means "departed" in a non-rebellious manner, though.

Locked at OP request.

No need to request deletion, I moved it to the eschatology section.

I cleaned out some of the stuff from the last two pages of this thread. Please keep it civil.

4 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I dont know if that would work here. I know kids do have active shooter drills and that some schools have armed guards. Other inner city type schools have metal detectors they have to pass through to get into school. 

I think openly armed police officers at every school would make a difference. The active shooter drills, I don't know. Possibly helpful, but drills like that tend to go out the window in an actual scenario unless they are actively practiced on a more than occasional basis.

Putting one cop per 500 to 1000 students at every school at all times would probably dissuade most of the actual mass school shootings i believe (probably not all of the ones that are personal issues between individual students over drugs or a a perceived slight, etc.). These guys are generally actively seeking soft targets. Armed and trained officers make it anything but that. That's not to say it couldn't still happen, just that these mass shootings don't tend to happen at schools where cops are on duty. Very large high schools may present problems to defend. If the cop is known to be a quarter of a mile away for instance, but in elementary schools and middle schools and smaller to moderate sized high schools it would probably have a deterrent effect. I think that the key here would be to do it consistently across the board at every school. If cops are at every school in the county district and the city district half a mile away doesn't have them, it would simply be a case changing plans on the part of the shooters.

I would also like to see the cops be actual cops from police departments that rotate through the schools for a day, week, month at a time. The reason I say this is that the intuition that comes with the experience of being an active street cop could not really be replaced by someone who was specifically trained just to work at a school as basically a guard.

Ultimately, these guys are basically cowards. That is why they choose to go up into a place to shoot unarmed children and adolescents. I think it's also notable that they generally refuse to actually engage the cops. They, almost uniformly, commit suicide or attempt to flee once they think the police are close. I think they would probably, in most cases, tend to want to avoid any, even marginal, chance of being challenged by a police officer.

1 minute ago, Quasar93 said:

 

You are questioning my honesty and integrity in what I have posted and have all of my response you will get at this point!  If you oppose the subject of this thread, then field an argument to that effect and cut out attacking me personally and how I use material I post here unless you are a mod or admin.

 

Quasar93 

I am not attacking you personally and I am indeed a moderator. I simply asked for clarification about a statement you made after starting a thread with a wikipedia article. I did not do so in a moderator capacity, but out of curiosity, mainly because a lot of those sources cited in the wikipedia article (which I did go to) did not seem like they were from overtly Christian sources.

15 minutes ago, Quasar93 said:

 

Wgat I cut from the Wikipedia is what I know fro 80 years of Bible Study and qualification from three Bible Colleges to teach the Bible, that it comes from a Christian source!  I did not copy everything that was contained in the Wki article!

 

 

Quasar93

Well, this is what you said.

Quote

FYI, every scientific source coming from what I post, comes from believing Christians, like you and me.  So forget about fielding an argument of guesswork that they are coming from non-believerxs attempting to prove anything other than God, created the universe

You pasted stuff from wikipedia on here and then claimed that "every scientific source coming from what I post, comes from believing Christians..." in a later post.

That's a pretty bold claim. I am not impugning your study or your educational background, but what I am saying is that it's incredibly highly likely that there are sources from non-believers cited in the wiki article you posted. Can you see where the confusion might come in?

5 minutes ago, Quasar93 said:

 

My apology for the rtpos in my reply to you.  Here is a corrected copy:

>>>FYI, every scientific source coming from what I post, comes from believing Christians, like you and me.  So forget about fielding an argument of guesswork that they are coming from non-believerxs attempting to prove anything other than God, created the universe!<<<

 

You can be assured, everything I post here, are factual truths.

 

 

Quassr93

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Was that wikipedia article written by believing Christians and if so, who are they?

On 1/20/2018 at 9:41 AM, Quasar93 said:

 

FYI, every scientific source coming from what I post, comes from believing Christians, like you and me.  So forget about dielding an argument of giuesswork that they are coming from non-believerxs attempting to prove anything other than God, created the universe!

 

Quasar93

All these articles cited at the bottom of this wikipedia article were written by bible believing Christians, you have verified that?

This thread has certainly ran its course.

Praying!

Think this one needs to cool off for a while, at least.

4 hours ago, Butero said:

I agree, but how do we stop it?  It is like there was this one thing the founders of the country didn't see coming, that judges would stop interpreting law according to original intent, and would start acting like dictators in black robes.  

There are only really a couple of ways.

The first would be a constitutional amendment or amendments redefining the bounds of the judiciary. This seems politically unlikely and could also present its own dangers, namely that the future is impossible to predict (for mere men) and what may fall out of any changes could ultimately be worse than what we have now.

The second, much more politically possible and less dangerous, means would be to replace the judiciary piece by piece from the top down with judges who interpret the constitution as it was written. We are probably in the only real window we are going to get for that for a very long time over the next 5 to 7 years, as the two oldest liberal justices and the one left leaning moderate are all old and highly likely to retire soon. I expect all three to hold their seats in a kung fu grip through trump's first term. If he wins a second, natural attrition will probably take over. It's difficult to envision all three remaining justices while pushing 90 years old (which is basically what the case would be in trump's second term). In fact,It's likely that all three would end up being replaced if trump got two full terms. It's even possible that kennedy will retire during this term (some think likely, but i am not currently in that camp anymore).

Also as far as this one thing the founders didn't see coming, most of them probably didn't, but, there are probably other things that can be exploited aside from the judiciary that have not been exploited yet. It took decades to change the perceived function of the court into how it is seen today, which is that it is basically able to write laws. If that avenue wasn't open, somebody would've probably figured something else out and if this is taken away, it's likely they'll start working on something else, though I have my doubt as to whether current day liberals have anywhere near the patience as the ones who embarked upon this strategy decades ago.

I believe this one has ran its course.