The Rapture is not Biblical, False Doctrine? But accepted?

[Hank77]

Are you saying that Irenaeus taught the GAP theory of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel?

This statement is Hearsay "And he called this period in which the Antichrist would destoy the world the “great tribuation.”

It is clear in the Bible that The LORD will destroy this earth, not the antichrist, and return it back to the way it was prior to the Creation week at his second coming.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Here is what Irenaeus wrote that was partially quoted before.
"Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons "as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance-in fact, as nothing; " so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption."

He says that the unjust are of use to the purifying of the saints, serving for the working of gold. His point is that tribulation is to refine the Church for he goes on to say the this tribulation will be the final contest that the righteous will overcome before being changed from corruptible to incorruptible, body, soul and spirit as Paul says.

If he means that the Church (who are the righteous) will be caught up before tribulation against them, how can tribulation be their last contest. It just wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Hank77]

My brother took it that I was criticizing him when I was saying that those that wrote that the last week of Daniel's 70 week prophecy were committing heresy. The reason that it is heresy is that the last week is about Christ's ministry, death at the cross and the gospel going to the gentiles, not about the antichrist. Futurism is a RCC teaching generated by Francisco Ribera a Jesuit priest during the counter reformation.

I agree.

It is my belief that the 70 wks were completely fulfilled when Jerusalem and the temple were decimated by the Roman armies in and around 70 AD.
Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about the terrible tribulation that came upon the unbelieving Jewish people.
Not one Christian life was lost as they had remembered the warning that Jesus had given them and had fled to the high country of Pella.

 

[Biblewriter]

Or they do the opposite.
The question remains one of motive.
Those who desire a pretrib rapture dont seem to want to lay thier lives down for Jesus ，now or anytime.

I take issue with that. The truth is, that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture are normally far more energetic in serving the Lord that anyone around them.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is what Irenaeus wrote that was partially quoted before.
"Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons "as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance-in fact, as nothing; " so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption."

He says that the unjust are of use to the purifying of the saints, serving for the working of gold. His point is that tribulation is to refine the Church for he goes on to say the this tribulation will be the final contest that the righteous will overcome before being changed from corruptible to incorruptible, body, soul and spirit as Paul says.

If he means that the Church (who are the righteous) will be caught up before tribulation against them, how can tribulation be their last contest. It just wouldn't make any sense.

You would not make this claim if you bothered to study out, in detail, the entire end time scenario foreseen by Irenaeus. But his statement that you say "just wouldn't make any sense," makes perfect sense to anyone and everyone who actually understands normal and standard per-trib doctrine.

The reason for this is that pre-tribbers, though they believe that the church will be removed from the earth before the tribulation starts, also teach that, after the church is removed, many others will turn to the Lord and seek to be faithful to him. They sometimes call this group "the righteous remnant." So to a pre-tribber, the words "the righteous," in the statement by Irenaeus, is a reference to that group.

I am not here speaking of who is right and who is wrong, but simply explaining how a group of people think.

 

[Hank77]

You would not make this claim if you bothered to study out, in detail, the entire end time scenario foreseen by Irenaeus. But his statement that you say "just wouldn't make any sense," makes perfect sense to anyone and everyone who actually understands normal and standard per-trib doctrine.

I was a pre-tribber for almost 35 yrs. I took a college class on Revelation and Daniel early on. I was in pre-trib church all of those years.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

we are certainly not bound by the science of this universe but free in the word of God who rules OVER it and it is subject to him .

Okay then, let’s see you break the laws of science. You can’t; so, we most certainly are bound by the science of this Universe.

After all , when he comes he will roll up the heavens like a scroll and appear . (which puts an end to all lying theories of theistic evolution too )

I believe, “roll up the heavens like a scroll and appear,” means that Christ will bring, "a new heaven and a new earth;" wiith him when he returns, in the Rapture. And I beliieve that heaven and earth to be the heaven and earth of the previous third day of the creatiion, that is with Christ now; waiting.

 

[JellyQuest]

Okay then, let’s see you break the laws of science. You can’t; so, we most certainly are bound by the science of this Universe.



I believe, “roll up the heavens like a scroll and appear,” means that Christ will bring, "a new heaven and a new earth;" wiith him when he returns, in the Rapture. And I beliieve that heaven and earth to be the heaven and earth of the previous third day of the creatiion, that is with Christ now; waiting.

Seen too many instant healings to consider the science of the universe as an authority over he whom created it.and who has all authority and dominion over it.

 

[JellyQuest]

I take issue with that. The truth is, that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture are normally far more energetic in serving the Lord that anyone around them.

If only that were true.

 

[BroIgnatius]

You are entirely correct in saying that the church ceased to teach premillennsm, although you are quite incorrect in saying that “by the fifth century it was no longer held by any of the Fathers.”

But you are misrepresenting church history in saying that “some of the Church Fathers were premillennialists.” The hard fact is that there is absolutely no Christian writer previous to Origen who denied a literal millennium, and whose works have been preserved. And you need to remember that Origen was originally condemned as an heretic.

So the hard fact is that every Christian writer who commented on the subject during the first two centuries of the church clearly taught premillennism. This included Papias (c.110-140) , Justyn Martyr (c. 150-160), Irenaeus (c.186-188), Tertullian (c. 207-208), and Hyppolytus (c.202-211). And after the church’s first two centuries, we find Commodianus (c. 240), Nepos (c. 250-260), Victorinus (c.270), Lactantius (c. 304-311), and Apollinaris (c.310-390).

Other early premillennists whose works I have not personally found, but have been referenced by others include Aviricius Marcellus (c.163), Methodius (died c. 311), and Gaudentius (c. 387-410).

(Note: I do not consider myself an expert on dates. All the dates I have given are approximate, and are strictly the opinions of others.)

Additionally, I most certainly did not say that any ancient Christian writer was a dispensationalist. But, although I did not say it in this thread, these early writers actually taught what would today be considered a strange mixture of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, their works containing most of the essential elements of both systems of doctrine.

But you are entirely incorrect that Irenaeus did not teach a rapture before the great tribulation. I did not go into it in this thread, but I have published detailed analyses of the entire end time scenario he constructed. And there can be zero doubt that:

1. Irenaeus saw only a 3-1/2 year tribulation, which he saw as the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week.

2. Irenaeus clearly taught that the church would be “suddenly caught up” before this “great tribulation.”

3. Irenaeus taught that this event would take place after the Antichrist came to power, and after he had “put the church to flight,” but that it would take place before the Antichrist began to destroy the world. And he called this period in which the Antichrist would destoy the world the “great tribuation.”

4. At the point in his scenario where Irenaeus said that the church would be “suddenly caught up,” he distinctly changed the nouns and pronouns he used in regard to those passing through these times. Up to that point he always used words such as “the church,” “we,” or “us.” But after this point in his scenario, he used only terms like “the righteous,” “they,” “them,” and “those.” This distinct change ih his use of nouns and pronouns proves that he really meant what he appeared to have been saying, when he spoke of the wickedness of the world in general terms, and then said, "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.'For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.'"

My friend, I think that the professional apologists and historians of the Catholic Church probably know more about this than a non-Catholic. The truth as been stated in my posts whether you like it or not. Please stop misrepresenting Catholic History and teaching.

Two articles on this:
The Rapture | Catholic Answers
Fundamentalism | Catholic Answers

There is zero doubt that you do not know what you are talking about and are a typical non-Catholic re-writing or misinterpreting history and documents to prove your man-made notions, no matter how you pontificate otherwise. Enough. Discussion ended.

 

[Biblewriter]

My friend, I think that the professional apologists and historians of the Catholic Church probably know more about this than a non-Catholic. The truth as been stated in my posts whether you like it or not. Please stop misrepresenting Catholic History. There is zero doubt that you do not know what you are talking about and are a typical non-Catholic re-writing history to prove your man-made notions and interpretations. Enough.

As the actual documents in question are readily available, the question of who "knows more about the subject" becomes simply nonsense. I have devoted a large portion of my life to conclusively proving that religious leaders from various groups are simply lying about their histories. In this particular case, I am dealing with the actual history of the Christian church. But the portion of that history that I am currently dealing with is from long before the beginning of the ascendancy of Rome, as the leader of Christianity. So any pretense that being a Catholic makes a man more qualified to comment on that history, is sheer nonsense.

But I agree with you in one point. enough of this nonsense. I have proved, and conclusively proved, my point. And you have demonstrated that you are not interested in evidence, but only in defending your opinion.

 

[BroIgnatius]

As the actual documents in question are readily available, the question of who "knows more about the subject" becomes simply nonsense. I have devoted a large portion of my life to conclusively proving that religious leaders from various groups are simply lying about their histories. In this particular case, I am dealing with the actual history of the Christian church. But the portion of that history that I am currently dealing with is from long before the beginning of the ascendancy of Rome, as the leader of Christianity. So any pretense that being a Catholic makes a man more qualified to comment on that history, is sheer nonsense.

But I agree with you in one point. enough of this nonsense. I have proved, and conclusively proved, my point. And you have demonstrated that you are not interested in evidence, but only in defending your opinion.

You have just proven your bigotry. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself. The name "Catholic" was given to the Church in 107AD by St. Ignatius.

So, regardless of all your pretense at study, you have failed due to your bias. It is also pride and arrogance to think that you "devoted a large portion of my life to conclusively proving that religious leaders from various groups are simply lying about their histories". And God has appointed you to expose all these people based upon your opinions and misinterpretations. That is a laugh.

I became Catholic partially because the Church is the most honest about its history than any other. The pretense to otherwise has been concocted by anti-Catholics. This can be proven.

The idea that a person biased against the Catholic Church and fails to understand her history even in the slightest is the one to comment on her history is sheer nonsense.

You have proved conclusively that you do not know much and refuse to see the evidence, but instead only interested in defending your puny opinion, as well as proven a HUGH pride and arrogance. Goodbye.

In obedience to St. Paul in Titus 3:10-11, you are on ignore.

 

[Biblewriter]

I was a pre-tribber for almost 35 yrs. I took a college class on Revelation and Daniel early on. I was in pre-trib church all of those years.

In the current discussion, the subject is not what the scriptures teach, but how ancient Christians interpreted them.

As to pre-trib, I did not just take a college course in Daniel and Revelation, devoted well over fifty years to an intense study of all the prophetic scriptures, which fill a third of the Bible. And I assure anyone and everyone, that an overall understanding of the prophetic scriptures makes it very plain that their subject is not what happens to "the church," but what happens to the ancient nation of Judah, that is, the Jews, and how God will use all that to being a small portion of that rebellious nation to repentance, so that in the end, they can finally be righteously saved.

 

[Biblewriter]

If only that were true.

If you were to actually study the facts, you would know it is indeed true.

 

[BroIgnatius]

If you were to actually study the facts, you would know it is indeed true.

If you were to actually study the facts, as I have, and is partially how I received by doctorate, you would know that your take on this is false. Okay. that is truly enough.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you were to actually study the facts, as I have, and is partially how I received by doctorate, you would know that your take on this is false. Okay. that is truly enough.

So --- a doctorate from a Catholic University makes a man qualified to comment on the relative intensities of the activities of various Protestant groups? It indeed qualifies a man to make authoritative pronouncements about what the Catholic Church claims to be its own history.

Whenever any group begins to claim it has never changed its doctrine, and its actual historical documents have been released to the public, it is fairly easy to disprove most such claims. For there is almost no allegedly Christian group that has not changed its doctrines, and radically changed them, in its time on this earth.

In the past, I have disproved such claims being made by various other groups about their histories. And at this time I did not even have the opinions of the Catholic Church in mind when I started my comments here. I was addressing false claims made by non-catholics, most of whom were not only non-catholics, but anti-catholics.

But I was, and am, prepared to conclusively prove that both a rapture before the great tribulation, and most of the main concepts of dispensationalism, were not only taught, but clearly taught, in the first two centuries of the church, and at many other times between then and the time of John Nelson Darby.

 

[DingDing]

In the current discussion, the subject is not what the scriptures teach, but how ancient Christians interpreted them.

This thread actually concerns itself with the question of the rapture. Any discussion about what the early church fathers wrote is a discussion of how we interpret their writings. So you are merely giving your interpretation of their writings. And your interpretation is just that - your interpretation. And a great many others who have read these writings do not agree with your interpretation.

... And I assure anyone and everyone, that an overall understanding of the prophetic scriptures makes it very plain that their subject is not what happens to "the church," but what happens to the ancient nation of Judah...

I think the scope of prophecy is larger than you realize, or care to admit.

 

[Francisco36842]

The word Rapture is actually very much in the bible. One must merely do a little bit of studying in the original languages.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be <b>caught up</b> HARPAZO/RAPTURE together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

When this verse was translated into Latin from Greek, the Greek word "harpazo" was replaced by the the Latin verb rapio meaning "to catch up" or "take away" (the Latin noun "raptus" "a carrying off"). The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as rapiemur. In Middle French "rapiemur" is "rapture" meaning ("to carry away") which is the same meaning as Rapture in English. So while the English word RAPTURE is not in scripture the Greek word HARPAZO is in scripture and it is the origin of the word rapture. So, yes, a rapture is very biblical. A pre-trib rapture is not biblical because Paul places the rapture after the tribulation and second coming and after the resurrection of the dead.

 

[Francisco36842]

This thread actually concerns itself with the question of the rapture. Any discussion about what the early church fathers wrote is a discussion of how we interpret their writings. So you are merely giving your interpretation of their writings. And your interpretation is just that - your interpretation. And a great many others who have read these writing do not agree with your interpretation.




I think the scope of prophecy is larger than you realize, or care to admit.

My New Testament professor explained the "rapture" debate in the following manner: "Students, whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib rapture in your theology, what matters in the final analysis is whether you are ready. Have you been an obedient, faithful, and fruitful follower of Christ to the end." The rest will take care of itself according to Elohim's interpretation of His own prophetic timetable and not how we agree or disagree on what Jesus meant in the context of his teachings or any of the apostles or any of the early church fathers. Are you ready?

 

[DingDing]

My New Testament professor explained the "rapture" debate in the following manner: "Students, whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib rapture in your theology, what matters in the final analysis is whether you are ready. Have you been an obedient, faithful, and fruitful follower of Christ to the end." The rest will take care of itself according to Elohim's interpretation of His own prophetic timetable and not how we agree or disagree on what Jesus meant in the context of his teachings or any of the apostles or any of the early church fathers. Are you ready?

But, the question remains, what are you ready for? Many churches are not preparing their people for the potential of extreme persecution. They are being spoon-fed an easy believe-ism and an early escapism. They are not being prepared for how bad things could get, nor are they being taught that true belief has true costs.

 

[patdee]

The Rapture is not Biblical, False Doctrine?

But accepted?

Can't find the word rapture in my bible only accepted by a lot Christian circles, why?

Does Satan wants to deceive us and make us lose hope, be afraid?

Does anybody has a Biblical answer?

---------------------------------------------------------

The word "Rapture", of course, does NOT appear in the bible. But this is true of MANY words that are not in the bible; but we use them all the time. Remember, words change drastically over time, and over millennial's the change can be unbelievable.

As long as one understands what words MEAN over time, it is OK to use different words describing the same thing or event. IE:

Automobile=car

Gay=joy-filled

Homosexual=gay

Etc.

Note the following verses:

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump(et): for the trumpet shall sound, and the "dead shall be raised" incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump(et) of God: and the "dead" in Christ "shall rise first": 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are "alive" and remain shall be "caught up" together with them in the clouds, to "meet the Lord in the air": and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the "first resurrection": on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests (children) of God and of Christ, and shall reign (be) with Him a thousand years.

ALL of these events are what is called, "The Rapture". Or, "Calling Up" Or "Caught Up", Or "first resurrection", etc, in today's vernacular.

In a word, there will be a time coming, (NO one knows the day or the hour), when ALL; both dead or alive; that are "born again" (true "Jews"=Christians*); WILL be removed from this earth in one gigantic miracle of Jesus (God almighty manifest IN the flesh**); where we will be taken to the "old Heaven"; where we will wait for the second "resurrection"; where those "left behind" will be resurrected (NO "rapture"). Then we ALL will be judged and those that are not "True Jews" will be cast into hell and ALL that are "True Jews" will receive a FULL pardon; and we will be sent to*** the "New Heaven"; where will spend eternity with Jesus.

* Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed (True Jews), and heirs according to the promise.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

** 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

*** Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create "new heavens" and a new earth: and the "former shall not be remembered", nor come into mind.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall "pass away", but my words shall not pass away. Revelation 21:1 And I saw a "new heaven" and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were "passed away"; and there was no more sea.

In any case, May Jesus richly bless you and yours always.

and-----------------------------

Happy New Year

and......................................

To hell with "Happy Kwanzaa" and "Happy Hanukkah". For ALL who do not become the true "Jews" WILL go to hell. The above verses prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt; to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. OH indeed yes! Believe it or not.