The Sack Lunches

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me. 'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan.

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.

As I reached for my wallet, I overheard a soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.' His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty-dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'

'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class.

'This is your thanks.' After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand and said, 'I want to shake your hand.' Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm. When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich.

God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers.

As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed so little... A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.' May God give you the strength and courage to pass this along to everyone on your email buddy list. I JUST DID.... There is nothing attached. Just send this to people in your address book. Do not let it stop with you. Of all the gifts you could give a Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, & others deployed in harm's way, prayer is the very best one.

I have no idea if this story is true or not, but it is the kind of thing we all would love to partake in.

Bill

3900 Marbles

3900 Saturdays

The older I get, the more I enjoy Saturday mornings. Perhaps it's the quiet solitude that comes with being the first to rise, or maybe it's the unbounded joy of not having to be at work. Either way, the first few hours of a Saturday morning are most enjoyable.

A few weeks ago, I was shuffling toward the garage with a steaming cup of coffee in one hand and the morning paper in the other.  What began as a typical Saturday morning turned into one of those Lessons that life seems to hand you from time to time. Let me tell you about it:

I turned the dial up into the phone portion of the band on my ham radio in order to listen to a Saturday morning swap net. Along the way, I came across an older sounding chap, with a tremendous signal and a golden voice. You know the kind, he sounded like he should be in the broadcasting business.

He was telling whom-ever he was talking with something about 'a thousand marbles.' I was intrigued and stopped to listen to what he had to say...

‘ Well, Tom, it sure sounds like you're busy with your job. I'm sure they pay you well but it's a shame you have to be away from home and your family so much. Hard to believe a young fellow should have to work sixty or seventy hours a week to make ends meet. It's too bad you missed your daughter's 'dance recital' he continued. 'Let me tell you something that has helped me keep my own priorities.' And that's when he began to explain his theory of a 'thousand marbles.'

'You see, I sat down one day and did a little arithmetic. The average person lives about seventy-five years. I know, some live more and some live less, but on average, folks live about seventy-five years.

'Now then, I multiplied 75 times 52 and I came up with 3900, which is the number of Saturdays that the average person has in their entire lifetime. Now, stick with me, Tom, I'm getting to the important part.

It took me until I was fifty-five years old to think about all this in any detail', he went on, 'and by that time I had lived through over twenty-eight hundred Saturdays.' 'I got to thinking that if I lived to be seventy-five, I only had about a thousand of them left to enjoy. So I went to a toy store and bought every single marble they had. I ended up having to visit three toy stores to round up 1000 marbles I took them home and put them inside a large, clear plastic container right here in the shack next to my gear.'

'Every Saturday since then, I have taken one marble out and throw it away. I found that by watching the marbles diminish, I focused more on the really important things in life. There's nothing like watching your time here on this earth run out to help get your priorities straight.’

'Now let me tell you one last thing before I sign-off with you and take my lovely wife out for breakfast. This morning, I took the very last marble out of the container. I figure that if I make it until next Saturday then I have been given a little extra time. And the one thing we can all use is a little more time.'

'It was nice to meet you Tom; I hope you spend more time with your family, and I hope to meet you again here on the band. This is a 75 Year old Man, K9NZQ, clear and going QRT, good morning!'

You could have heard a pin drop on the band when this fellow signed off. I guess he gave us all a lot to think about. I had planned to work on the antenna that morning, and then I was going to meet up with a few hams to work on the next club newsletter.

Instead, I went upstairs and woke my wife up with a kiss. 'C'mon honey, I'm taking you and the kids to breakfast.' 'What brought this on?' she asked with a smile. 'Oh, nothing special, it's just been a long time since we spent a Saturday together with the kids. And hey, can we stop at a toy store while we're out? I need to buy some marbles.



A friend sent this to me, so I posted it here and sent the link to you, my friend.

And so, as one smart bear once said...'If you live to be a hundred, I want to live to be a hundred minus one day, so I never have to live without you.' - Winnie the Pooh.

Pass this link on to all of your FRIENDS, even if it means sending it to the person that sent it to you.

And if you receive this e-mail many times from many different people, it only means that you have many FRIENDS.

And if you get it but once, do not be discouraged for you will know that you have at least one good friend...And that would be ME.

(Author Unknown)

History of the Rapture Teaching

The following is an email regarding research on the Rapture teaching and the history of how it evolved. Unfortunately, the authors name is unkmown.

I have no opinion on this email.

In my historical research of the Church over the last 35 years I have found an earlier record of the rapture doctrine than Margaret McDonald and the Irvingites.

If you will check the counter-reformation move of Papal Rome in the 16th century after Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, you will find that Pope Leo X authorized three Jesuit Priests to reinterpret Daniel's 70 weeks of prophecy; the Book of Revelation; and Ezekiel. The goal of these Jesuits was to take the heat of the reformation away from the papacy. The three Jesuits were:

1. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca - futurism/rapturists
2. Luis de Alcazar (1554-1621) of Seville - praeterism
3. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine (1542-1621) - followed Ribera's school of thought.

The futurists rapture doctrine originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585. His Apocalyptic Commentary was on the grand points of Babylon and Anti-Christ which we now call the futurists or rapture doctrine. Ribera's published work was called "In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli & Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari (Lugduni 1593). You can still find these writings in the Bodleian Library in Oxford England.

I don't have the time or space to go into this in great detail, but suffice it for now that Ribera's futurist interpretation rocked not only the protestant church, but also the Catholic church so the Pope ordered it buried in the archives out of sight. Unfortunately, over 200 years later a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the name of S. R. Maitland (1792-1866) was appointed to be the Keeper of the Manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, in London, England. In his duties, Dr. Maitland came across Francisco Ribera’s futurists/rapture teaching and he had it republished for the sake of interest in early 1826 with follow-ups in 1829 and 1830.

This was spurred along with the Oxford Tracts that were published in 1833 to try and deprotestantize the Church of England. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) (A Leader of the Plymouth Brethren) became a follower of S.R. Maitland’s prophetic endeavors and was persuaded. Darby’s influence in the seminaries of Europe combined with 7 tours of the United States changed the eschatological view of the ministers, which had the trickle down effect into the churches. Darby’s/Ribera’s teachings were embraced radically by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921). Scofield adopted Darby’s/Ribera’s school of prophetic thought into the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 which was heralded as the “book of books”.

Another contributor to the rapturist’s chaotic prophetic line of thought came through Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801), a Jesuit priest from Chile. Lacunza wrote the “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” around 1791. It was later published in London in 1827. The book was attributed to a fictitious author name Rabbi Juan Josafat BenEzra. Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834) contended that it was the work of a converted Jew and proved that even the Jewish scholars embraced a pre-tribulation rapture line of thought. It wasn’t long until he had persuaded others to follow his line of thought, which gave birth to the Irvingites (per your reference to Margaret McDonald).

In March 1830, in Port Glasgow, Scotland, 15-year-old Margaret McDonald made claim of her visions. Robert Norton published Margaret’s visions and prophecies in a book entitled, “The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets in the Catholic Apostolic Church” (London, 1861). Although the modern day view of every believer being taken away in a rapture is different from all of the thoughts that came before it, there is little doubt to its error.

Lacunza asserted that only those believers that partake of the sacrament of the Eucharist would be raptured; while Margaret McDonald said the rapture would only take those that were filled with the Holy Spirit; and Norton claimed that only those that had been sealed with the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands would be raptured. Definitely confusion ensued.

John Darby, an ordained deacon in the Church of England, was acquainted with Edward Irving and had visited Margaret McDonald during the time of her visions. Combined with the knowledge he had gained from S.R. Maitland/Ribera’s teachings and the new push from Irving/McDonald/Lacunza’s teachings, Darby used the rapture theory to bring a clean break from the lethargic Church of England. Ribera and Lacunza’s teachings find a meeting point in John Nelson Darby.

The effects of this purported lie against the truth are still dominant today in Christian churches worldwide. Albeit the light is still shining, through individuals like yourself, and I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that Truth will prevail and this disgusting futurists heresy will be thrown down and disproved once and for all.

The Jesuits and the Rapture-Rebuttal

The Jesuits and the Rapture

< My comments will be sandwiched between left and right angle brackets and in light blue. >

< In my opinion, the author of this article is using the term "future" as relative to now, rather than relative to the time the scriptures were written. This in and of itself invalidates much of this article. It should also be noted that the author has not signed this article. As long as the author remains unknown, then his/her credentials are certainly questionable. As well, this author makes these claims dogmatically when they are merely his opinions on the subject and the scriptures, much like most other persons opinions, including mine. > 

< For now, this is my only comment, but more to come. Here is an interesting link that refutes the rapture. Read it and make your own decisions.  No Rapture in Bible >

There are those who claim that the pre-tribulation rapture is an evil deception because it was invented by evil Jesuits (the evil henchmen of the Catholic Church) for the purpose of deceiving and countering the Protestant reformation, and to distract from the prophetic interpretation of the reformers that the Pope was the antichrist.

For a long time, I felt it unnecessary to investigate these claims, for several obvious reasons. Most importantly, the doctrine of the rapture does not stand or fall on who may have first noticed and taught certain elements of doctrine in scripture. The rapture doctrine is valid only if it is supported by scripture. The Protestant reformation was based on turning to scripture to resolve matters.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That alone should be enough to put this entire matter to rest, and nothing more need be said. It is obvious that we must agree that something true, such as 2+2=4, remains true, even when such a truth is spoken by a liar, or the most evil man. Truth does not become untrue just because an evil or stupid man speaks it. Therefore, there is simply no basis for the claim that the rapture is an evil deception because futurism was once taught by an evil Jesuit. I could read 1000 pages on how the Jesuits are evil, and I can even agree on that. I could even read about, and agree that, an evil Jesuit expounded the doctrine of futurism for the evil purpose of trying to discredit the Protestant reformation. But neither of those facts has any bearing on the truthfulness of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture.

Further, not only is the entire idea of the "Jesuit rapture" irrelevant (only scripture is relevant) but also, the idea is absurd. The doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture is simply not taught by the Catholic Church! Therefore, the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture condemns the Catholic Church because it makes the Catholic Church into a "false prophet" since they do not teach it!

Yet, despite these self-evident truths which destroy the claims that "the pre-tribulation rapture is an evil deception because it was invented by evil Jesuit Catholics", there is no shortage of web sites that take this position. You can find many such web sites if you go to a search engine and search for "rapture Jesuit Ribera".

Francisco Ribera was a Jesuit, and he wrote a book on Bible Prophecy in 1585-1590 (?) with the perspective of "futurism". However, Ribera did not invent futurism! The key element of a future antichrist is easily seen in scripture itself and requires no inventiveness of any kind. Ribera simply read 2 Thess 2:3-4 and took the words "temple of God" to mean a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem instead of the view of the reformers that the "temple of God" was referring to the Church, because, of course, the body is the temple. (1 Corinthians 6:19, John 2:21) If anything, the view of the reformers was more inventive (requiring a sort of spiritualized substitution of words) than Ribera's view! Additionally, it is far more obvious to see the 1260 days and/or 42 months, of Revelation 12 & 13 as 3.5 years of 1260 literal days than as 1260 years. It takes no evil inventive subversive genius to simply believe what the Bible says! But the view of a future antichrist in a future literal temple is so clearly evident in the scriptures (and not an invented heresy) that it was also taught by men over 1000 years earlier by Church Fathers such as Irenaeus & Hippolytus around 125 AD. You can look those names up in a search engine and find that Irenaeus & Hippolytus interpreted Daniel's 70th week as a future event, with a future antichrist to come during a final period of tribulation. To read Irenaeus, see "IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - BOOK V", Chapter 25, paragraph 4 at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103525.htm or http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren5.html or http://www.gnosis.org/library/advh5.htm To read in the Bible about the antichrist to come, see Daniel 7-12, 2 Thess 2, Matt 24, and Rev 12-13.

There are a few more false assumptions made by those who would deny the pre-tribulation rapture because of it's supposed Jesuit origins, and I would like to examine a few of them:



False assumption #1. They assume that the reformers and martyrs, because they died for the faith, must have had an absolutely correct and perfect view of prophecy. This assumption elevates men above scripture. The men of the Protestant reformation died because they fought against revering men, they died for the right of all men to respect scripture more than men. Therefore, putting the prophetic beliefs of the reformers and martyrs up on a pedestal is exactly the opposite of the principle for which they fought and died.

If the reformers had the ability and the right to make Christ as their head instead of the Pope, and they trusted the words of Jesus that he would lead them into truth, and they trusted in their ability to read and comprehend the scriptures, then there is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing ourselves.

Speaking of the beliefs of the reformers; there were many early English Bible translations before the King James Version in 1611. In at least seven of these early English translations from the 1500's, the Greek word "apostasia" from 2 Thess 2:3 was translated "departure" or "departing", instead of "falling away" as in the King James, or "rebellion" in other modern translations. When the word is seen as "departure", the verse can easily be seen to teach that the departure, or rapture, must come first, before the Day of the Lord is present, or that the tribulation is present. Therefore, this verse, and the early English translations of many of those martyred for the faith, strongly support the position of the pre-tribulation rapture. But unless one has the perspective that this prophecy is about future events and sees that the Day of the Lord starts at the time of the coming tribulation, then the "pre-tribulation" implications of 2 Thess 2:3 might be missed.

I acknowledge that the reformers had a good understanding of prophecy, but certainly not perfect. Not even the authors of the Bible claimed to understand prophecy perfectly in all points.

1 Corinthians 13

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

But we, who live in the last time, should understand prophecy better than any previous generation, because that's what Daniel says, "knowledge shall be increased," and "the wise shall understand."

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

False assumption #2. They assume that the futurist view of a future antichrist is incompatible with the historicist view that the pope is the antichrist. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are often double or multiple references and double or multiple fulfillments in scripture. Just because there is an "antichrist to come" does not mean there cannot now be any antichrists such as the Pope. The scriptures clearly indicate both a future antichrist to come, and the existence of antichrists at the time scripture was written. Futurism, and the view of the pre-tribulation rapture, does not take the heat off the Pope.

In the following two scriptures, the future antichrist to come is indicated by the phrases "ye have heard that antichrist shall come" and "whereof ye have heard that it should come". In addition with that, and not to refute that, the verses also indicate the presence of the antichrist already in the world by the phrases, "even now are there many antichrists", and "even now already is it in the world."

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Therefore, to say that the issue is one where the antichrist must either be interpreted as coming in the future only, or existing now in the present only, is really quite a distortion, or lie. Anyone can simply read the scriptures, and easily conclude the answer is both! Those who adhere to the view that it must be "either/or", and not both, are the ones who are playing into the hands of the Jesuits, since it was only by framing the argument in those terms could the Jesuits be successful.

False assumption #3. Often it is assumed or claimed that Francisco Ribera invented the pre-tribulation rapture. But Ribera did not teach the pre-tribulation rapture, he primarily taught futurism, and an antichrist to come in the future. Admittedly, yes, Ribera did place the rapture 45 days prior to the end of a 3.5 year tribulation, but not 7 years before. And so, some say he was the first (I don't believe he was, in fact, the first) to split the timing of the rapture and the physical return of Christ. But Ribera's view was more of a form of post tribulation or pre wrath viewpoint where the Church has to go through most of the tribulation.

False assumption #4. Some claim, on the one hand, that the few thousands of early reformers who were killed for their faith somehow proves that their prophetic interpretation of historicism was true. On the other hand, these same people who deny the rapture will claim that the millions in China who were taught about the pre-tribulation rapture and who were killed for their faith just goes to show that they had the wrong prophetic view. Hmm... It seems that there is a gross inconsistency in the application of this principle which views martyrs for the faith as automatically having the right prophetic views.

I have read that Corrie Ten Boom, a Christian woman who went through the horrors of the Jewish holocaust, said that the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture deceived many Christians in China who were martyred because they were not prepared for being persecuted, because they were taught that persecution would only come in the future. Well, there are several problems with her evaluation. First, there is nothing in the pretrib view that says that there cannot be tribulation today. Therefore, the pretrib view was not responsible for "not preparing" anyone for persecution. So, if Christians in China were unprepared for persecution, then it must have been that they were taught an erroneous view of the pre-tribulation rapture. Second, there is no need to lament the deaths of Christians, if one has any understanding and faith in the resurrection at all. That's what 1 Thess 4, which is about the rapture, is all about.

1 Thess 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

Again, to revere Corrie Ten Boom's evaluation of the rapture as somehow worthy of adulation since she suffered at the hands of the Nazis is the same old error of elevating the opinions of men above what scripture says.