wingnut-

I agree it is a voice. I disagree with you saying there are no trumpets in heaven. Unless that isn't what you meant?

You'll have to explain that to John then, because he wrote there are seven angels with seven trumpets. The trumpet is not the symbol, it is a voice that reminds John of a trumpet. The fact is, it is a voice, and as others have said you are forcing that in there. God bless

Traitors, the name Benedict Arnold comes to mind.

Yes, certainly plausible and most likely a factor. Money is the root of all sorts of evil. The local news even implement being "first" as an advertising gimmick, at least the local news here does.

Me too, I would also like to see this second "rapture". Another created word that doesn't appear in scripture, but of course it shouldn't because Paul in I Corinthians 15 tells us it is a resurrection, and John tells us in Revelation there is a first resurrection for believers, and a second resurrection for non-believers. I sure wouldn't want to be part of the second one.

It's a voice, like a trumpet. Not a trumpet, I agree with the others who disagree. There is a difference between a voice and a trumpet. God bless

Good question, but you won't get an answer to it. Kinda smells like adding something to the book doesn't it?

Sorry, but that is not proper reading comprehension. A writer does not give you a topic in the first sentence and then refer to some other topic after it. The day Paul is speaking of in the first sentence includes both His coming and the gathering, and then continues to speak about it in the following sentences. Paul specifically says that this day will not come before the falling away or the anti-christ is revealed, and that is perfectly clear in the passage. As far as the apostasy, I never suggested it had anything to do with the restrainer. The apostasy is in reference to people walking away from faith in God, and there is no other group that fits that description other than believers. One cannot walk away from faith in something they never had faith in, so I'm not following you at all on this. God bless

Absolutely zero scriptural support for this statement.

The 6th seal is not pre-trib, so we actually agree on the when, and it is after the 6th seal we are gathered.

No, I mean they are dead and in heaven. Not their bodies, but their souls are. II Corinthians 5:We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. God bless

Exactly, the Bill of Rights empowers individuals, and those rights extend to every corner of this nation. That is precisely why the founders guaranteed those rights. The government has already infringed on the rights of public establishments, repeatedly. Restaurants and bars can no longer allow people to smoke in them, not by choice, but by law. Private clubs cannot restrict membership requirements, not by choice, but by law. Private clubs cannot restrict leadership positions, not by choice, by law. And when someone in your state decides to push their right to curse in a restaurant if they want to, you will find that this too will be allowed by law. Removing someone from a business has guidelines by law as well, ladykay posted them. None of them restrict speech other than if you are harassing employees or other customers. A few other exceptions would be hate speech or anything that could be construed as threatening which would get you labeled as a terrorist, and under the Patriot Act they have all sorts of latitude.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. God knew exactly what He wanted to say, and their memories are not in question, or what they knew when they wrote it. I think they understood exactly what He meant when it was written. Are you suggesting they wrote all this down as it was said? The only thing you pointed out is that those in Judea are told to flee, and considering there are Messianic Jews living in Israel covers that. Honestly all I see in regards to this only being for the Jews is assumption. What other references are you speaking of? Again, this is simply an assumption. God does not change, He knew the end from the beginning and I disagree that the elect ever means anything other than believers, His chosen people. You consistently speak about the fact that the Old Testament is always pointing to the New Testament and Jesus specifically, the same applies here, which is why Peter references Isaiah when he clearly defines the Gentiles as being part of the elect. Or are you suggesting that every single Jew from the Old Testament are believers? I agree that God could use any method to speak to them that He wishes. But ask yourself why it would be necessary to take them aside for 3 1/2 years if that were already accomplished? It would appear that scripture tells us the how already. God bless

I'm not completely sure I understand the question, so I will answer both possibilities I can think of. Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. I don't disagree that part of His purpose is to take the remnant aside and bring them into the fold, but I am not sure that is the main purpose. I think overall the main purpose of the tribulation is to eliminate the enemy and all who follow him. More of a purification than anything, so the original design can be restored with no more sin and perfection can remain forever. God bless

When they wrote these things the "church" did exist, and keep in mind that Jesus also specifically told them that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things, and bring to remembrance all things He said to them. So they knew exactly what they were saying, and I disagree that Matthew 24 in any way suggests it is only for Jews. Exactly, I agree with you 100% on this. The 1/3 that will come to Jesus are preserved in the wilderness for the entire 3 1/2 year period, out of satan's reach. So the enemy turns his wrath on believers, wages war. The other 2/3 of Israel will be "cut off and die" according to Zechariah, which of course means they will not turn to Jesus, because being cut off from the vine is clearly defined by Jesus as being thrown into the fire. I never ignore scripture, and I also never said the elect did not include the Jews. You must not have read the thread, because I have clearly stated that the elect includes both Jew and Gentile. In your post to me, you neglected to include the Gentile part, and what you said below is what I responded to. I was clarifying that God not only refers to the Jews as His elect, but also the Gentiles who believe. So there is really no need to accuse me of ignoring scripture, particularly when I am well aware of the scripture you referenced and what it says. Isaiah 42:1 is speaking of Jesus, the other passages speak of His chosen people. Considering that 2/3 of them will be cut off and die, I would disagree. I would also like to point out that those in Judea are told to flee, to not even go back to their houses for their cloaks, so suggesting they will have time to go around collecting bibles is quite a stretch. And assuming that Rabbi's or those out to disprove the bible will be amongst the 1/3 who will survive is not impossible, but certainly not a guarantee. God bless

Who will see it? Those who are alive at the time it happens. The disciples started the church, so I don't agree that it is in a Jewish context. Those in Judea are told to flee, which would apply to Messianic Jews as well. In the Old Testament the Jews are told when to flee by Daniel, Zechariah tells them what direction, and Hosea and Isaiah tell them where they will end up. Peter refers to Jesus as the elect, see my previous post in this thread in regards to the New Testament definition of the elect. Paul tells the church in Corinth there is no difference between Jew or Greek (which makes sense because they were Greek), and in Romans Paul tells us that there is no difference between Jew or Gentile. There is one seed, one body, one Spirit. I don't know that all non-believing Jews don't read it, but considering that it is a false teaching in their view, it is logical. God bless

Maybe because nowhere in those two gospels does it indicate that it is for a group that doesn't read the books in the first place

Are membership restrictions and employee restrictions not rules set by those private entities? Did the SCOTUS not specifically rule against those rules? Is freedom of speech not found in the Bill of Rights? The law is to be applied even handed, the SCOTUS cannot say in one breath that their rules are a violation and in the next breath say that they are not. Their rules are subject to the law of the land.

They haven't heard a case specifically in regards to freedom of speech, but they have ruled against membership restrictions, and personnel restrictions as violations, this is a precedent that has been established and would be applied in the same manner.

I know exactly what it says, they are not allowed to make a law restricting free speech. The SCOTUS has set a precedent that the law of the land overrides private entities from violating the law within the land.

How do you come to that conclusion considering He is speaking privately to His disciples? Also considering that non-believing Jews do not read the gospel of Matthew it is illogical for God to give them a message that He knows they won't read?

Love ya sister.

I'm saying they have the right to refuse her because of the disturbance she was causing, not because they don't agree with the words coming out of her mouth.

I agree, that is exactly why she was asked to leave.

Because the Constitution is the law of the land, and Walmart is in this land.