Matt 16:18 - I want more insight

[NotWorthy]

If you look at the Passage in one context, you can see what Jesus is doing with Peter.

When Peter teaches with divine guidance, Jesus blesses him. "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."

When Peter teaches with an earthly desire, Jesus curses him. “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

As long as the Church teaches with diving guidance, She will be blessed. Luckily, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be there to guide the Church.

 

[micas]

micas;2122124:

[SIGN accountable to teach Gods word [/SIGN]

But what you said previoulsy is that the Holy Spirit leads us all in Truth. Which inferred that the Holy Spirit was telling you which verses should be read figuratively and which should be read literally.

Now you are saying you submit to your pastors interpretations of Scripture. And there in lies the problem.

Your pastor’s don’t follow the apostolic mission set forth by Jesus through Peter. You have verified this yourself by discounting Jesus creation of the Church upon Peter.

No matter how you decide to interpret Mat 16:18, it sitll stands that Jesus was clear about creating an apostolic mission through Peter. To re-interpret the evidence and come up with a contrary meaning is nothing short of putting yourself above God.

Why is it OK for you to submit to your pastor’s interpretation of Scripture, but its not Ok for Catholic’s to submit to the Church’s teachings on Scriptures?

It also seems to me that if you carry around your Bible in an effort not to be duped, why would you still submit to your pastor’s interpretations? It would seem as though he is duping you by giving you a falacious and disproven interpretation of Mat 16:18.

I believe the original text was written in Kione Greek which only had one interpretation for rock. And at the least, if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, this language only had one interpretation for Rock.

Sounds to me like your pastors are teaching you straight out of Chick Tracts.

"It is very clear in Scripture that Jesus told Peter, whose name means “rock,” that “you are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). To undermine this, Chick makes the familiar claim that two different words are used here in Greek—petros and petra—and that the first means a small stone or pebble while the latter means a huge rock or boulder.[73]

This simply is not true. The difference in meaning can be found only in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—a different dialect. In Koine, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” The argument shows a faulty knowledge of Greek.[74] Further, Jesus’ native language was Aramaic, not Greek, and in the Aramaic underlying this passage, the same word—kepha—would have been used in both instances.

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

Like I said we hold are pastor accountable, that he teach truth,thats why we bring and study Gods word the bible.We are to be like the Bereans.On the other hand RC follow what the Church interpets scripture to mean for them.I do and can without the fear of anthema diagree with My pastor on different interpatations that I would call non essentuals,we can have different perspectives.But on the foundations of our faith there are no disagreements,(meaning on salvation) that is what I mean by submitting to my pastor and his authoity to lead are fellowship on matters of missions, prayer, counseling ,church discipline, and for being fed spiritually Etc.I dont just follow him blindly neither would any true beliver would follow anyone claiming to be a pastor teacher who is not teaching the truth we would immediatly confront that individual,and no one who is a bible student would follow if it went against Gods word.Your claim that sence evangilcals dont believe or follow the RCC claim that Jesus built His church on Peter there for we are duped as you stated is a false claim.We could argue back and forth all day and get no were trying to defend each others view point on who is the rock from Matt.16:18.But the bottom line is Gods word is truth and in light of scripture the RCC claim cant hold up even if Peter was the rock that Christ built His church were true,ipso infacto ,The RCC papacy is established.There is nowhere in scripture to back that claim up .So we look to scripture and what does it say.that the foundation was built on the apostles and prophets,Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.(Eph.2:20) were is the supremacy of Peter? The apostle Paul explains the church was built on the truth of Gods word,which was revealed to His Holy apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit.(Eph.3:5).Even the modern day RCC admits this fact.Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirt and drawn by the Father we believe in Jesus and confess:You are the Christ the Son of the living God,on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter, **Christ built His church **CCC par 424 truly the rock is the faith confessed by Peter.But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God,and that believing you may have life in His name.(John 20:31)And the Jack Chick tracts thing ,Hes not a pastor teacher that I know of. hes an apoligetist,and those tracts he writes are for you RC benifits we dont study them Ive seen them,some times a little in your face but can you show me something hes wrong about?

 

[NotWorthy]

Micas, your quotes would be easier to understand if you used a few spaces and paragraphs!

Like I said we hold are pastor accountable, that he teach truth,thats why we bring and study Gods word the bible.We are to be like the Bereans.On the other hand RC follow what the Church interpets scripture to mean for them.I do and can without the fear of anthema diagree with My pastor on different interpatations that I would call non essentuals,we can have different perspectives.But on the foundations of our faith there are no disagreements,(meaning on salvation) that is what I mean by submitting to my pastor and his authoity to lead are fellowship on matters of missions, prayer, counseling ,church discipline, and for being fed spiritually Etc.I dont just follow him blindly neither would any true beliver would follow anyone claiming to be a pastor teacher who is not teaching the truth we would immediatly confront that individual,and no one who is a bible student would follow if it went against Gods word.

OK, but what are the essentials? Surely Baptism as a means of Salvation would be considered an essential. For that matter, Infant Baptism should be an essential.

Yet, we have disagreements among Churches! Who’s right and who’s wrong?

Some Catholics do follow the Church teachings blindly (Faith is a wonderful thing), but there are also numerous that validate everthing taught. You can’t say the Church teaches everyone blindly, my friend.

Your claim that sence evangilcals dont believe or follow the RCC claim that Jesus built His church on Peter there for we are duped as you stated is a false claim.We could argue back and forth all day and get no were trying to defend each others view point on who is the rock from Matt.16:18.But the bottom line is Gods word is truth and in light of scripture the RCC claim cant hold up even if Peter was the rock that Christ built His church were true,ipso infacto ,The RCC papacy is established.There is nowhere in scripture to back that claim up .

Don’t ya’ll have Isaiah in your Canon? John chapter 21? Matthew 16? Acts of the Apostles?

So we look to scripture and what does it say.that the foundation was built on the apostles and prophets,Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.(Eph.2:20) were is the supremacy of Peter? The apostle Paul explains the church was built on the truth of Gods word,which was revealed to His Holy apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit.(Eph.3:5).Even the modern day RCC admits this fact.Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirt and drawn by the Father we believe in Jesus and confess:You are the Christ the Son of the living God,on the rock of this faith confessed by Peter, **Christ built His church **CCC par 424 truly the rock is the faith confessed by Peter.But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God,and that believing you may have life in His name.(John 20:31)

Why yes, Christ is the cornerstone. The Apostles are the foundation. There was (and is still) a need for one authority, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout the history of the Church.

And the lack of a Pope has been shown numerous times throughout the Protestant Churches. How many splits do you have to see in Protestant Churches over “The Essentials” do you have to see before you guys come to realize the Truth of Jesus’ words and the necessity of His motives in Matthew?

And the Jack Chick tracts thing ,Hes not a pastor teacher that I know of. hes an apoligetist,and those tracts he writes are for you RC benifits we dont study them Ive seen them,some times a little in your face but can you show me something hes wrong about?

There are numerous, NUMEROUS threads that show how Mr. Chick mis-represents Catholic Doctrine. Just do a search.

It seems he realizes this, but he knows there are enough Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to be able to see the lies that Mr. Chick propogates.

 

[Janet_S]

Here’s a Report on the Jack Chick tracts

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

 

[micas]

Micas, your quotes would be easier to understand if you used a few spaces and paragraphs!

OK, but what are the essentials? Surely Baptism as a means of Salvation would be considered an essential. For that matter, Infant Baptism should be an essential.

Yet, we have disagreements among Churches! Who’s right and who’s wrong?

Some Catholics do follow the Church teachings blindly (Faith is a wonderful thing), but there are also numerous that validate everthing taught. You can’t say the Church teaches everyone blindly, my friend.
Don’t ya’ll have Isaiah in your Canon? John chapter 21? Matthew 16? Acts of the Apostles?

Why yes, Christ is the cornerstone. The Apostles are the foundation. There was (and is still) a need for one authority, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout the history of the Church.

And the lack of a Pope has been shown numerous times throughout the Protestant Churches. How many splits do you have to see in Protestant Churches over “The Essentials” do you have to see before you guys come to realize the Truth of Jesus’ words and the necessity of His motives in Matthew?

There are numerous, NUMEROUS threads that show how Mr. Chick mis-represents Catholic Doctrine. Just do a search.

It seems he realizes this, but he knows there are enough Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to be able to see the lies that Mr. Chick propogates.

All your answers are a distraction from the truth your avoiding the the biblical responces iam giving you and answering with Your perspective and not Gods word. Answer to the responses i gave you. that there is no proof of supremacy of Peter over any of the other Apostles and that the church is not built on Peter but his confession. I even gave you your own doctrine from the CCC to back that up which you just shurrged off.I shared in my first post, if you cant back up what you say by the word of God you have no leg to stand on.And the scripture verses you used and implied that possibly we dont have.Where exactly do these prove Peters supremacy or the office of Pope.Show me.

 

[micas]

Here’s a Report on the Jack Chick tracts

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

And i repeat show me something hes wrong about this is just Catholics trying to say you really dont believe this stuff do ya

 

[adrift]

Hi LT,first of all any debate that you have with Evangelicals etc.will have to be biblically sound.Especially the claim that the Catholic church and the supremacy of the Pope lay on this verse.Matt16:18.So was Peter the rock on which Christ would build His church.Or is it the confession that Peter made. You are the Christ the Son of the living God. The word Peter,Petros means a small stone. start by looking at John 1:42 .It says —And he brought him to Jesus .Now when Jesus looked at him,He said you are Simon the son of Jonah.You shall be called Cephas(which is translated A stone).If you want to continue let me know,and I will continue with you if not see you around.

The word Peter means rock. There is no Greek word that is Petros.
Petros is masculine of the word petra. Cephas is translated as rock.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144611&page=2&highlight=petros

jmcrae
had a good explanation

With regard to the Petros/Petras question, it is, of course, very valuable to move back to the Aramaic, where we find that Peter’s name, “Kephas,” as he is referred to throughout the book of Acts and in many of St. Paul’s epistles, means “a large rock” - that is, “Petra” in Greek.

From this, along with the fact that the word “petros” was not in use in the Greek language at the time of Matthew, it is easy to see that Jesus’ new name for Simon, which we pronounce as “Peter” in English, means “a large rock” and that Jesus, indeed, intended to ordain Peter as head of His Church, as our Catholic Church history also confirms.

We can also quite profitably move forward to the English as it is used in modern times, by simply reversing the problem and asking ourselves, “What is the name given to little girls, when we wish to name them after the Apostle Peter?”

The name given to these little girls (at least, in larger towns and in cities) is “Petra.” Further, little Petra knows, usually by the time she is three years old, that the reason she is called “Petra” is that “Peter” is a boy’s name - this little three year old girl understands something very important here, which is that Petra is the girl’s name, and Peter is the boy’s name, but that both names are the same name, and that, when a boy or man is named after a Petra, he has to be called “Peter,” just as when a girl or woman is named after a Peter, she has to be called “Petra.”

If you diagram the sentence, you will see clearly that “Upon this Rock” is a prepositional phrase that modifies Peter.

 

[adrift]

And i repeat show me something hes wrong about this is just Catholics trying to say you really dont believe this stuff do ya

He misrepresents all Catholic teachings.
In one of his pamphlets, he says that priest forgive sins that is not Catholic teaching.
He claims:
That Catholic believes that Catholics work their way to heaven.
We believe we are saved through grace.
He claims we worship Mary.
We do not
He claims that the Mass is not scriptural.
It is scriptural and is commonly called the Last Supper.
If you do not see how he twist Catholic teaching, it show how little you know of what Catholics believe.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Micas,

I have a question for you. Are you one of those evangelicals that believes in the rapture?

 

[SFLCatholic]

Hi
This is often used as a cover to shield the irrational concepts introduced by the Church after when Jesus departed from Galilee alongwith his mother Mary to some unknown destination, that does not mean that a free man should not think freely and ask the questions arising in his mind on such concepts introduced by the Church. The Church in itself could explain away things in a rational and logical ways. This is my opinion, others could think differently.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between the faiths/denominations/religions

The Holy Spirit Used as a cover?

Odd, thats not what the Qur’an says.

*Q.4:158 But Allah raised Him (Jesus) up unto Himself. *

This verse gives a clear understanding of the Muslim perspective regarding the death of Jesus. That Jesus was ascended into Heaven to be wiht God. He didn’t depart from Galile to some unkown destination as you say.

And:

Al-Ma’idah 5:110 Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit

God referring to filling Jesus with the Holy Spirit to fulfill His ministry.

I am surprised you didn’t know this as a Muslim. At least, thats what you list as your religion.

Your post sounds more like something out of the DaVinci Code.

 

[Janet_S]

And i repeat show me something hes wrong about this is just Catholics trying to say you really dont believe this stuff do ya

The answer to your question is in this article. Did you even look at it? The author of this article used the Bible to support what he or she claims. These are the refuted issues:

Anathema
Anointing of the Sick
Antichrist
Assurance of Salvation
Baptism
Bible Corruption
Clergy & Religious
Communism
Confession
Conspiracy
Demons
Divided Loyalties
Eucharist
Faith Alone
Inquisition/Death to Non-Catholics
Mary
Millennium
Nazism
Other Christs
Paganism/Idolatry
Pope
Purgatory
Rapture
Repulsive Catholics
Tradition
Vatican Riches
Whore of Babylon

Here is one example–Baptism. The author claims Jack Chick is wrong about the Catholic teaching on Baptism. The author points out why Chick is wrong and then gives 10 Bible verses to support what he or she said.

I repeat, if you are able to read and comprehend, this article does answer your question–(Why is Chick wrong).

 

[Janet_S]

Since we have one Muslim, several Catholics, and at least one Jack-Chick-endorsing fundamentalist participating in this thread, I thought you all might be interested in looking at this Chick Tract, “The Deceived.” This is an interesting tale of how the Muslim religion “really” began.

chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

Paarsurrey, I am interested in your opinion on this particular Chick Tract.

 

[paarsurrey]

Answer to the responses i gave you. that there is no proof of supremacy of Peter over any of the other Apostles and that the church is not built on Peter but his confession. I even gave you your own doctrine from the CCC to back that up which you just shurrged off.I shared in my first post, if you cant back up what you say by the word of God you have no leg to stand on.And the scripture verses you used and implied that possibly we dont have.Where exactly do these prove Peters supremacy or the office of Pope.Show me.

Hi
How true you are? Now NoteWorthy should answer these valid questions rationally and logically.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

 

[paarsurrey]

That Jesus was ascended into Heaven to be wiht God. He didn’t depart from Galile to some unkown destination as you say.

Hi
We were witnessing from NTBible; all of a sudden you switch to another Book. Are your arguments from the NTBible finished and you don’t find anything in NTBible supporting your assertions? I think there must be something still in the stock, better bring that forth. Good luck and friend I love you all Christians.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faith/denominations/religions

 

[adrift]

Hi
We were witnessing from NTBible; all of a sudden you switch to another Book. Are your arguments from the NTBible finished and you don’t find anything in NTBible supporting your assertions? I think there must be something still in the stock, better bring that forth. Good luck and friend I love you all Christians.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faith/denominations/religions

Is NtBible mean New Testament? If is does, you were not stating anything from it. SFLCatholic was quoting from the New Testament
From Acts:

9
When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.
10
While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them.
11
They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”

It does not say that Mary went with Him because she didn’t. She went with John into whose care Jesus had placed her.

26
When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27
Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
28

 

[adrift]

Hi
How true you are? Now NoteWorthy should answer these valid questions rationally and logically.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

This was answered in post 47

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **micas** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2126748#post2126748) 				
  		*Answer to the responses i gave you. that there is no proof of supremacy of Peter over any of the other Apostles and that the church is not built on Peter but his confession. I even gave you your own doctrine from the CCC to back that up which you just shurrged off.I shared in my first post, if you cant back up what you say by the word of God you have no leg to stand on.And the scripture verses you used and implied that possibly we dont have.Where exactly do these prove Peters supremacy or the office of Pope.Show me.:shrug:*

Hi
How true you are? Now NoteWorthy should answer these valid questions rationally and logically.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

OK, if we must. But it seems we’ve done this, oh, about a million times.

By the way, Paar, you do a WONDERFUL job of bridging gaps, my friend. I don’t think you’ve answered a single one of my responses to your mis-representations of the Bible.

A) Isaiah 22:20-25

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority.

Here, we see the Old Testament type to the New Testament Papacy. One can easily see the correlation between this passage and Matthew 16. The role of Eliakim will be the Prime Minister, who will rule in Israel in the absense of the King.

***He shall be a *****father **to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

Let’s see, “Father”. Where do we get the word Pope from? Hmmmm, it comes from the word Papa.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

The keys are obviously the symbol of authority. The opening and shut are clear references to binding and loosing (Both connote the authority to make laws and rescind laws).

I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

This, and the replacement of the predecessor show that this is an OFFICE. Not just a position held by a person, but an office that will have replacements.

On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.

Now here, my Christian brothers tend to grasp at a perceived weakness in the Papacy, for Eliakim’s peg will break. This is a fallacious argument, in my opinion, for Jesus clearly leaves this part out.

Would you like me to continue with ACTS, where Peter displays his power to bind and loose?

 

[micas]

Micas,

I have a question for you. Are you one of those evangelicals that believes in the rapture?

Yes ;For the Lord himself will decend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel,and with the trumpet of God,and the dead in Christ will rise first.Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (from the Latin vulgate Rapturos,were we get the english word rapture) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.(1 Thess.4:16-17).Behold,I tell you a mystery:We shall not all sleep,but we shall be changed—in a moment ,in the twinkling of an eye,at the last trumpet.For the trumpet will sound,and the dead will be rased incorruptible,and we shall be changed(.1 Cor 15:51-52). Not to be confused with the Lords second coming which is a different event all together when the whole world will witness it.Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.And He will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet ,and they will gather His elect from the four winds,from one end of heaven to the other.(Matt.24:29-31).Two completly different events.All so In (Rev.5:8-10 ) we see the 24 elders Jesus as a slain lamb and the redeemed sang a new song.You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; for you were slain, And have redeemed us to God by your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us Kings and priest to our God; and we shall regin on the earth. Who but the church would be singing this song ? no one the church has been raptured prior to the tribulation then the elect return with Christ at His second coming. .And before the great day of his wrath has come,and who is able to stand Rev.6:17 .Know dont give me your opinion give me scripture to defind your perspective on this.

 

[NotWorthy]

How does Peter show the powers to Bind and Loose?

Look at Acts chapter 1, it’s all in there.

When Peter decides to replace Judas’ position, does he consult and take a vote? No, he decides that Judas office (notice he uses the term “office” or “bishopric” Do any of you guys have bishops in your faith?) must be filled with someone new. He also decides how it is going to happen? What happens? It seems everyone acquiesces to Peter’s decision.

Let’s look at chapter 10. Who is the first to accept the Gentiles into the New Covenant Church? Peter. Did he consult anyone? no.

Go to Chapter 15. As everyone is arguing over the laws of Circumcision and whether the Gentile brothers should be bound by them, it is Peter who stands up and declares that the Gentiles should not be bound by the yoke of the Mosaic Law, “and all were silent”. This is Jewish Speak for “Case-Closed”.

But wait, Paul speaks next, “and all were silent”. But listen to Paul’s words. He explains that the Holy Spirit has been working among the Gentiles already. Paul is merely adding his backing to Peter’s words.

But wait, James speaks next, even saying “therefore, it is my decision”. Why does James make a decision. For one, because the council was in his city. For another, his decision is based on Peter’s edict “Ah, that’s what ‘therefore’ is there for…”!!! And James merely elicits a discipline, not anything infallible like Peter did. Notice Peter’s edicts (ch.'s 1, 10, & 15) are never reversed, even to this day, while James edict (a discipline) is reversed later on in Paul’s Epistles.

But wait, if Peter is infallible, why does Paul have to correct him? Paul doesn’t correct Peter’s teachings, he corrects Peter’s actions, for it is his actions that are wrong. No one ever claimed the Pope is impeccable. Jesus knew that Peter was imperfect by just observing him, with his denials and his frequent outbursts, but yet He still chose him to lead His Church.

No, instead, it is Paul who goes to Peter to verify that Paul’s teachings are accurate. He does this before he ever goes out preaching, even though Jesus had clearly given him authority to teach.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes ;For the Lord himself will decend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel,and with the trumpet of God,and the dead in Christ will rise first.Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (from the Latin vulgate Rapturos,were we get the english word rapture) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.(1 Thess.4:16-17).Behold,I tell you a mystery:We shall not all sleep,but we shall be changed—in a moment ,in the twinkling of an eye,at the last trumpet.For the trumpet will sound,and the dead will be rased incorruptible,and we shall be changed(.1 Cor 15:51-52).

Amen, my brother, say it!!! You are spot on with good sound Catholic doctrine!!!

Not to be confused with the Lords second coming which is a different event all together when the whole world will witness it.

Ooooh, you lost me there. And you were so close!

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.And He will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet ,and they will gather His elect from the four winds,from one end of heaven to the other.(Matt.24:29-31).Two completly different events.All so In (Rev.5:8-10 ) we see the 24 elders Jesus as a slain lamb and the redeemed sang a new song.You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; for you were slain, And have redeemed us to God by your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us Kings and priest to our God; and we shall regin on the earth. Who but the church would be singing this song ? no one the church has been raptured prior to the tribulation then the elect return with Christ at His second coming. .And before the great day of his wrath has come,and who is able to stand Rev.6:17 .Know dont give me your opinion give me scripture to defind your perspective on this.

I’ll let others handle that! Just that this is a Tradition of Man introduced in the mid 1800’s. It’s interesting that the Holy Spirit waited 1800 years to guide Christians to this truth!

BTW, paragraphs and a few spaces would be nice, my brother!