There is NO rapture!!!

[Hockey_Fan]

New Jerusalem is an actual, literal city?

Or symbolic of God's presence?

 

[chalkstc]

dc,

I caught something in one of your posts that I missed. I never said we go to heaven at the harpazo, but that we meet (apanthesis) the Lord in the air and continue in His descent to the MT of Olives.

The reason for the rising in the air is to gsther saints from the four compass points to central location and then go to Israel with the Lord.

I have showed by the only two other texts, that it is the ones who go out to "meet" that change direction and not the one who comes.

You said you do believe in the gathering and the resurrection. Well, play it out......how do we get gathered and where do we go? Or maybe will take a 747?

Frankie

PS on the amill front.....................When the kingdoms of this world become the Lord's and His Christ..............what does it mean if not a physical literal reign upon the earth when the government is upon His shoulders?

 

[Manasseh_]

Again, I'm not questioning the resurrection. Not in the least. Indeed, I affirm it. As well, I don't think I've ever cast doubt on whether or not there is a final 'gathering' of the saints. But if there is, it will be in the New Jerusalem, not in the clouds.

Oh, I get it, the OP is one simple statement which implies no gathering of saints at all, but now, we have new rules applied after the fact, now you're adding a new parameter to the mix, ie, you do believe there will be a gathering of saints, you just disagree as to when it is.....

according to the statement of the OP, don't you think your premise is a bit deceiving in it's intent as to compared to what you're saying now ?

I do........................was that your intent to deceive ? sure seems to be comparing the OP to your statement here.

 

[dcyates]

New Jerusalem is an actual, literal city?

Or symbolic of God's presence?

Hmmm. Good question. What do you think?
(Btw, which hockey team do you cheer for?)

 

[yedida]

New Jerusalem is an actual, literal city?

Or symbolic of God's presence?

It seems to be described in too much detail to just be symbolic.
Also, if we believe that the old heavens and the old earth are done away with and there is a literal new heavens and new earth, and if we believe that the scriptures are true that Jesus will set up His eternal throne in Jerusalem, then there must be a New Jerusalem?
On the other side of the coin Rev.21:1 only says that the old heavens and old earth had passed away. It could be symbolically that they were destroyed and made over without any seas - then the city could be symbolic too.
Still seems like too much description to just be symbolic.

 

[dcyates]

dc,
I caught something in one of your posts that I missed. I never said we go to heaven at the harpazo, but that we meet (apanthesis) the Lord in the air and continue in His descent to the MT of Olives.

The reason for the rising in the air is to gsther saints from the four compass points to central location and then go to Israel with the Lord.

I have showed by the only two other texts, that it is the ones who go out to "meet" that change direction and not the one who comes.

You said you do believe in the gathering and the resurrection. Well, play it out......how do we get gathered and where do we go? Or maybe will take a 747?
Frankie

Maybe we will take a 747. Who knows? The truth is, who would have possibly guessed the means and circumstances of Jesus' first coming? Nobody would have imagined that the Creator and Lord of the universe would have manifested himself as a baby born, under very questionable circumstances, to peasants in what was widely regarded as one of the most backwater areas of the known world. He didn't come as a mighty king or conquering warrior, leading powerful armies of great and influential nations.
I mean just think about it. If we were to imagine God himself coming in the flesh, we would have thought -- if he came as a baby at all -- he would have been born to great, powerful, not to mention beautiful, people of impeccably noble blood. It would have been an event that rivalled any royal birth in history. It would have been accompanied with extravagant pomp and ceremony. He would have had the best of everything: a solid gold bassinet with silk sheets and satin pillows. All the most important, wealthy, and powerful people would be invited to witness him being first presented to the world.
Instead, he was born to a couple of poor Jews -- and there were still questions swirling around as to just who the actual father was -- who were being forced to travel a relatively long distance on foot by their overseers, the Roman Empire. His mother had no other choice but to give birth to him in a grotto that was used to house the household animals. It stank of animal dung and there were more than a few flies buzzing around. His crib was the animals' feeding trough and his bedclothes were rags used to wipe down the beasts of burden. Sure there were some angels that appeared to make the royal announcement of their new king's birth. But even that was only to a few lowly shepherds. One of the most significant events in history -- and certainly the most significant birth -- came and went with hardly anybody noticing.
All this is to say, Jesus' first advent was a completely unexpected mystery that nonetheless fulfilled prophecy. My guess is that his second advent will ultimately prove just as unexpected and just as mysterious -- but will nonetheless fulfill all the prophecies concerning it. It will just be in a manner we couldn't have imagined if we tried.

PS on the amill front.....................When the kingdoms of this world become the Lord's and His Christ..............what does it mean if not a physical literal reign upon the earth when the government is upon His shoulders?

Oh, I think it will be. I just know though that "one thousand years" is not meant to be understood literally. "One thousand" back then in the 1st-century was kind of like our "one million" now; it was considered an exceedingly large number. So, to say that something was going to last a very, very long time was to say that it was going to be around for a thousand years. You didn't mean an actual one thousand years on the dot. You just meant a long, long time. Kind of like our saying, "If I've told you once, I've told you a million times." You don't mean you've literally told this person 'whatever it may be' a literal one million times. You just mean you've had to tell them 'whatever' many times.
For example: Is the '144,000' of Revelation literally 144,000? No. It's symbolic. How many thrones and, thus, elders are mentioned in Rev 4.4? Twenty-four. Twelve plus twelve. Why? How many patriarchs (tribes) made up the old nation of Israel? Twelve. How many people made up Jesus' official apostles? Twelve (surely itself symbolic of the 'new' restored Israel). Both these groups, Israel and the New Israel (which now includes Gentiles), go to make up the People of God. But obviously it's more than just these. Many more people became members of the People of God through these. How is that number represented? 12x12x1,000 (because, again, 1,000 was regarded as a huge number) equalling 144,000.

 

[dcyates]

Oh, I get it, the OP is one simple statement which implies no gathering of saints at all...

No. How does it imply that?

...but now, we have new rules applied after the fact, now you're adding a new parameter to the mix, ie, you do believe there will be a gathering of saints, you just disagree as to when it is.....

No. How does the OP say anything with regard to time? I don't know the time any more than any of us do. I suppose, if anything, I'm questioning the means by which this gathering will be achieved -- not the gathering itself. And I'm certainly not saying anything about when.

according to the statement of the OP, don't you think your premise is a bit deceiving in it's intent as to compared to what you're saying now ?

No. Frankly, I don't know where you're getting any of this.

I do........................was that your intent to deceive ? sure seems to be comparing the OP to your statement here.

This is like someone in a group of people (of which we're all a part) saying, "Let's all meet at such-and-such a restaurant about four miles from here in about an hour."
And a few people say, "Sure. Let's all fly there."
I object saying, "No! We're not going to fly there. We can drive."
Only to have you accuse, "Gee whiz, this guy is saying we're not going to be meeting together at that restaurant in about an hour. What a lying jerk!"
What?!?

 

[chalkstc]

dc,

It will just be in a manner we couldn't have imagined if we tried.

I'll just quote...........................

1 Thess 4:16 ​

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:​

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.​

​

KJV

Seems to be straight forward to me......................

Oh, I think it will be. I just know though that "one thousand years" is not meant to be understood literally

I've heard this weak arguement before. But if you are right, we are left in confusion on a host of OT texts numbering people and things...................

Num 2:6 ​

And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.​

KJV


Num 2:8 ​

And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.....etc​

KJV

The above was the numbering of all the tribes as they were positioned around the Tabernacle. Are you saying Moses could not count a literal bunch of people as the Lord commanded him to?


2 Kings 5:5 ​

And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.
KJV

So this king really didn't know how many pieces of gold he literally had? Come on now, my brother................God is not a God of confusion. He says what He means and means what He says.​

​

Me thinketh that your view is placed into scripture rather than letting scripture form your view.

If I had a thousand bucks in my wallet and handed it to you but said it was a million bucks, how would you know how much I actually gave you unless you counted it.

Both figures is a lot of money, but the mill transcends the thou......................

un-nasty

 

[Manasseh_]

No. How does it imply that?

No. How does the OP say anything with regard to time? I don't know the time any more than any of us do. I suppose, if anything, I'm questioning the means by which this gathering will be achieved -- not the gathering itself. And I'm certainly not saying anything about when.

No. Frankly, I don't know where you're getting any of this.

This is like someone in a group of people (of which we're all a part) saying, "Let's all meet at such-and-such a restaurant about four miles from here in about an hour."
And a few people say, "Sure. Let's all fly there."
I object saying, "No! We're not going to fly there. We can drive."
Only to have you accuse, "Gee whiz, this guy is saying we're not going to be meeting together at that restaurant in about an hour. What a lying jerk!"
What?!?

Here is your OP, apparently you've already forgotten what you posted.

There is NO rapture!!! No pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib! Nothing! The Bible does not teach a rapture of any kind!

Ok, I'll start with saying I prefer the word gathering rather than rapture , but the implication in both words is that there is a gathering of saints to Christ at his return.

Now to the reader, your OP has only one premise, and it's not implied at all, it's an explicit statement made by you. and that statement says there will be no gathering whatsoever of saints to Christ.

Notice how you ended with "NOTHING !" to place emphasis to this statement then a further and final emphasis is then made , ie, that the bible just doesn't teach any such a thing.


Now we do have explicit statements made by Christ himself, statements of promise and prophecy, he has said that he will send angels at an appointed to to gather all his saints to him , along with verses such as this he has also stated that at this time he will resurrect dead saints too.

This is the reason I stated that you don't believe in resurrection, because if Christ did not gather his saints then he also will not resurrect them either because they are part of the same event, in other words you can't believe one part and deny the other, they go hand in hand according to scriptures.

Ok , so your very first statement gave your first premise, now compare it to your latest statement..............................................

Again, I'm not questioning the resurrection. Not in the least. Indeed, I affirm it. As well, I don't think I've ever cast doubt on whether or not there is a final 'gathering' of the saints. But if there is, it will be in the New Jerusalem, not in the clouds.

It's all to easy to see that this statement is inconsistent to your first................WHY?

because now you do at least in part believe there is a resurrection and you do say there is a gathering of saints, you simply disagree that it is pre, mid, or post, along with that you have suggested that it will be at another point in time.

You can come up with all the analogies or metaphors that your heart desires to try and prove or defend your lastest statements...............but one thing is proven fact.

Your 2 statements are inconsistent with each other.
You have contradicted yourself.

 

[dcyates]

Because I did not consider this discussion worth even considering, I completely ignored it after my first comment until today, to my surprise, I found this comment, which I have to admit is not simply being irreverent about the scriptures.

I have to admit that, when discussed in this light, this is a legitimate subject for discussion.

This, however, does not for even a moment mean I give any credence to the argument.

It indeed seems that this argument is correct, when the opinions of so many recognized "experts" are considered. But these "experts" are, in at least this case, mistaken.

Because so many widely recognized experts agree with this analysis, I am going to do something I have never before done in this forum. I am going to quote from an analysis of this subject that is so thorough and so obviously unbiased that it is authoritative.

This analysis is the Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994) 15-34, © 1994 Institute for Biblical Research, and is titled "Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17." It was written as a conclusion in Doctoral research by Michael R. Cosby of Sioux Falls College.

This paper is particularly authoritative in this subject because it was written by an opponent of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, and because it is the report of a study undertaken to absolutely prove the correctness of the analysis given above by dcyates. But what the author found instead of what he was looking for was indisputable proof that this analysis is incorrect.

Cosby begins this report by saying,

"In 1930 Peterson published 'Die Einholung des Kyrios,' an article providing quotations from ancient papyri, inscriptions and literature in order to demonstrate that behind Paul's words in 1 Thess 4:17 stands the custom of the Hellenistic formal reception of a dignitary. This viewpoint, widely held among biblical scholars, states that Paul presupposed that his readers in Thessalonica would understand his description of the Parousia in light of such receptions. Thus the formal elements of these welcoming celebrations are unstated parts of the text because of Paul's use of the technical term APANTHSIS.

"The present study, which ironically began as an attempt to strengthen Peterson's case, reveals that APANTHSIS was not a technical term and that all of the main elements of Hellenistic receptions are missing from 1 Thess 4:15-17. An analysis of the ancient descriptions of these receptions shows that most of their usual elements are actually the opposite of what we find in Paul's description of the Parousia. Instead of being a cipher for understanding what Paul meant, they function more as a foil—a loose pattern to play against when describing the coming of the heavenly king."

Further on in the report, he says...
.............................
When some form of APANTHSIS was used in regard to formal meetings to escort a dignitary back into a city, it essentially always was accompanied by a series of formal elements, all of which are totally missing in 1 Thessalonians 4.

Cosby ended the article with these words:

"Only after a period of about a year was I able to admit the possibility that Peterson's exegesis was eisegesis. With great hesitation I carefully examined the data, and honesty forced me to admit I had been wrong. In a way this was a triumph, for it illustrated again the power of the text to transform the view of the reader.

"At this point, with only a small amount of residual resentment, I admit that the text of 1 Thess 4:13-17 leaves open the matter of whether or not the Christians are caught up in the air in order to escort the Lord back to earth. By comparing this passage with the other New Testament texts that speak of the Parousia it remains clear, at least to me, that the Parousia in Paul's mind included divine reward of the righteous and judgment of the wicked. But honesty forced me to defuse the most effective bomb in my historical arsenal that so readily destroys the fanciful notion of the Rapture. How much of our scholarship do we perform while looking over our shoulders at the beliefs of our youth that have become sources of embarrassment to us as scholars?"

You can read the entirety of this report at:
http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_1994/BBR_1994_02_Cosby-Apantesis1Thes.pdf


As I said, in all my experience in this forum, I have never before appealed to the authority of another scholar. But this paper is so authoritative and convincing that I, in this first and perhaps last case, present the findings of a different scholar.

I'm sorry, James. I initially missed this response from you and, while looking for another one, just now came across it. Thank you for it.
I certainly don't mind you appealing to the work of another scholar. In fact, I appreciate it. However, I have to say, the above is the opinion of only one man. (For a direct response to M. Cosby's argument, see R. Gundry, "A Brief Note on 'Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of [FONT=Symbol, serif]APANTHSIS [/FONT]in 1 Thessalonians 4:17'," BBR 6 [1996], 39-41. Gundry suggests that, despite the lack of those other "formal" elements of such Hellenistic receptions in this passage, other contextual matters continue to support the view that this term does indeed bear those connotations. See also, idem. "The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians," NTS 33 [1987], 161-78.)
If you'll indulge me, below is my appeal to several at least equally capable scholars:

In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we find the following definition for apantesis: "In 1 Th. 4:17 there will be, at the Lord's return, a rapture of his people to meet him. The word apantesis was used for the public welcome accorded to important visitors. Similarly Christians will welcome Christ, acclaiming him as Lord" (I:380-81).​

In the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology we read: "The use of apantesis in 1 Thess. 4:17 is noteworthy. The ancient expression for the civic welcome of an important visitor or the triumphal entry of a new ruler into the capital city and thus to his reign is applied to Christ.... The same thoughts occur in the parable of the ten virgins. The virgins leave to meet the bridegroom (eis apantesin tou nymphiou), i.e., the Lord, to whom they wish to give a festive reception (Matt. 25.1)" (I:325).​

In his commentary on 1 Thessalonians, G.K. Beale notes: "A number of commentators believe that reference to Christ's parousia (4:15) together with mention of resurrected saints meeting (eis apantesin) Christ in the clouds (4:17) reflects the Hellenistic background of the coming of kings or other dignitaries to a city. The king was typically met outside the city by a welcoming party that conducted the royal visitor back into the city (i.e., the saints conduct Christ back down to earth)" (IVPNT: 140f).​

Ernest Best, in his commentary observes: "Like the word parousia 'meeting' had a technical meaning in the Hellenistic world in relation to visits of dignitaries to cities (the two words appear together in Josephus, Ant. 11.327f); the visitor would be formally met by the citizens, or a deputation of them, who had gone out of the city for this purpose and would then be ceremoniously escorted back into the city." Later on, Best then asks the question: "Do the Lord and the saints remain 'in the air' or do they together ascend with him to heaven or descend with him to earth? If the Hellenistic associations of 'meeting' are pushed then the saints will escort the Lord back to earth, which would accord with that strain in apocalyptic thought which envisages a reign of Christ on earth" (BNTC: 199, 200).​

Similarly, F.F. Bruce comments: "When a dignitary paid an official visit[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]([/FONT][FONT=Symbol, serif]parousia[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif])[/FONT][/FONT]to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escort him back on the final stage of his journey was called the apanthsiV” (WBC: 102).​

As well, Gene L. Green's commentary testifies: "To meet (eis apantesin) was almost a technical term that described the custom of sending a delegation outside the city to receive a dignitary who was on his way to town. In Acts 28.15 Luke utilizes this word in his description of the way a delegation of Christians from Rome went out to receive Paul and his companions when he approached the imperial city.... The customary procedure was for the delegation to return to the city with the visiting dignitaries (Acts 28.16; also Matt. 25.6)" (PNTC: 226).​

Abraham J. Malherbe, in his work on 1 Thessalonians, states: "Another connotation (of the word apantesis) has also been found, which has been more widely accepted. In this technical sense, the word (apantesis) was used of citizens, or a group of them, going out of the city to meet a visiting dignitary and then escorting him back into the city (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.26-28, for a priest awaiting the parousia of Alexander in order to go out to meet [hypantesis] him)" (AB 32B: 277).​

According to University of Aberdeen's Professor of NT Exegesis, I. Howard Marshall: "It is here that his people go to 'meet the Lord'. Although this rests on a common OT phrase, the Greek word used here probably carries an allusion to the way in which a visiting dignitary might be met on the way to a city by a representative group of citizens who would then escort him back to the city. We may compare how Paul was met by the Roman Christians some miles from the city (Acts 28:15, where the same phrase is used). A further occurrence of the same idea in the context of the parousia is to be found in Mt. 25.6. If this is a correct interpretation, then we may well take the further step of deducing that the Lord's people go to meet him in order to escort him back to the earth and that this is where they shall always 'be with the Lord'. It is improbable that this permanent union takes place in the air or in heaven (4:14 note)" (NCBC: 131).​

In C.A. Wanamaker's commentary on 1 Thessalonians, he writes: "The expression[FONT=Symbol, serif]apanthsiV [/FONT]was a technical expression in Hellenistic Greek for the departure from a city of a delegation of citizens to meet an arriving dignitary in order to accord the person proper respect and honor by escorting the dignitary back to the city" (NIGTC: 175).​

Ben Witherington III explains: "But it was also the case that a royal visit to a city would be announced by a herald (see Ps. 24.7-10) and might well also be announced by a trumpet blast meant to alert those in the city that the king was coming.
"This imagery is pursued further in v. 17 with the use of the term apantesin. For example, Cicero says of Julius Caesar's victory tour through Italy in 49 B.C.: 'Just imagine what a meeting/royal welcome (apantesis) he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him' (Ad. Atticus 8.16.2; cf. 16.11.6 of Augustis: 'the municipalities are showing the boy remarkable favor... Wonderful apantesis and encouragement'). This word refers, then, to the actions of the greeting committee as it goes forth from the city to escort the royal person or dignitary into the city for his official visit."​

And finally, world-renowned NT scholar N.T. Wright, in his recent book Paul: In Fresh Perspective, teaches: "The word parousia itself, and the language of 'meeting' which Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4.17, is not, like so many of his key terms, familiar from the Septuagint. It evokes the scene, familiar from much Hellenistic and Roman writing, of a king or emperor paying a state visit to a city or province. As he approaches, the citizens come out to meet him at some distance from the city, not in order to hold a meeting out in the countryside, but to escort him into the city. ‘Meeting the Lord in the air’ is not a way of saying ‘in order then to stay safely away from the wicked world,’ it is the prelude to the implied triumphant return to earth where the Messiah will reign, and his people with him, as Lord, saviour and judge. And in that context parousia means what it means in imperial rhetoric: the royal presence of the true Lord or emperor" (pp. 55-56).​

 

[dcyates]

dc,
I'll just quote...........................

1 Thess 4:16

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:​

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.
KJV

Seems to be straight forward to me......................

Frank (a.k.a. 'un-nasty'), again...

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright,​

In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Just as William Blake utilized vivid imagery to communicate the overwhelming feelings one experiences when in the awesome, menacing presence of a tiger, so also the apostle Paul employed imagery that would have been familiar to both Jews and Gentiles to communicate his message.
Paul was drawing on the imagery of Exodus 19.16-20, where t[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]he cry of command, the angel’s call, the shofar, the people’s approach, and the clouds, all strongly recall Israel’s theophanic experience with YHWH at Mount Sinai. And Paul is also very likely deliberately echoing Psalm 47.5:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]God has ascended (to his throne on Mt. Zion) with a shout, [/FONT]
YHWH, with the sound of a trumpet.
And as I've repeatedly noted as well, he uses language that would have caused his audience to picture in their minds all the pomp and ceremony that accompanied an official visit from the emperor.

I've heard this weak arguement before. But if you are right, we are left in confusion on a host of OT texts numbering people and things...................

Num 2:6 ​

And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.
KJV

Num 2:8 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.....etc
KJV

The above was the numbering of all the tribes as they were positioned around the Tabernacle. Are you saying Moses could not count a literal bunch of people as the Lord commanded him to?

2 Kings 5:5 And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.​

KJV

So this king really didn't know how many pieces of gold he literally had? Come on now, my brother................God is not a God of confusion. He says what He means and means what He says.

Me thinketh that your view is placed into scripture rather than letting scripture form your view.

If I had a thousand bucks in my wallet and handed it to you but said it was a million bucks, how would you know how much I actually gave you unless you counted it.​

Both figures is a lot of money, but the mill transcends the thou......................

un-nasty

Come now, Frank. Naturally there are instances where numeric figures are meant to be understood as being literal; as in, those exact numbers. But I'm sure you'll also agree that there are obviously other instances where numeric values are not used that way, and thus are not intended to be understood as exact. If I told you that I currently have a bank balance of $1,245,963.76 (I wish), I think it's pretty safe to assume that I intend that figure to be understood quite literally. But if, in another context, I say, "I must have told my son a million times not to do that," then I certainly wouldn't fault someone for not taking that figure literally, but instead understanding it as the simple use of hyperbole.
So, as I say, regarding the "thousand year" reign of Christ, because the number '1,000' was considered to generally represent a lot of something in the 1st-century, chances are better than not that it's simply meant to be understood as representing 'a long time'.

 

[dcyates]

Here is your OP, apparently you've already forgotten what you posted.

Ok, I'll start with saying I prefer the word gathering rather than rapture , but the implication in both words is that there is a gathering of saints to Christ at his return.

Now to the reader, your OP has only one premise, and it's not implied at all, it's an explicit statement made by you. and that statement says there will be no gathering whatsoever of saints to Christ.

Notice how you ended with "NOTHING !" to place emphasis to this statement then a further and final emphasis is then made , ie, that the bible just doesn't teach any such a thing.

Now we do have explicit statements made by Christ himself, statements of promise and prophecy, he has said that he will send angels at an appointed to to gather all his saints to him , along with verses such as this he has also stated that at this time he will resurrect dead saints too.

This is the reason I stated that you don't believe in resurrection, because if Christ did not gather his saints then he also will not resurrect them either because they are part of the same event, in other words you can't believe one part and deny the other, they go hand in hand according to scriptures.

Ok , so your very first statement gave your first premise, now compare it to your latest statement..............................................

It's all to easy to see that this statement is inconsistent to your first................WHY?

because now you do at least in part believe there is a resurrection and you do say there is a gathering of saints, you simply disagree that it is pre, mid, or post, along with that you have suggested that it will be at another point in time.

You can come up with all the analogies or metaphors that your heart desires to try and prove or defend your lastest statements...............but one thing is proven fact.

Your 2 statements are inconsistent with each other.
You have contradicted yourself.

Oh, brother! Manasseh, NO! I do not "in part believe there is a resurrection"! I fully, vigorously, and strenuously believe it. How many times do I have to say so?!? I've also stated -- in only my second post on this thread:

This (1 Cor 15) is referring to our transfiguration from corruptible bodies into incorruptible and the general resurrection of the dead.

I've also said -- again, on the very first page of this forum:

As I've already noted, in 1 Thess 4.13-18, Paul is writing of both the 'raising to life' of the dead in Christ and of what has been all too commonly thought of as 'the rapture'. But the most pertinent phrase, hoi nekroi en Christo anastesontai proton, in verse 16, definitely has to do with the dead in Christ being raised to new life. After all, directly translated it says: "the dead in Christ will rise first." It's hard to get any more clear than that.

I've deliberately highlighted the word "and" above to show that the two doctrines (one being that of 'the resurrection' and the other being that of 'the rapture') are, properly understood, mutually exclusive, separate, not one and the same.

So, to reiterate: I fully, vigorously, and strenuously believe in the resurrection.
And to quote myself again:

It's hard to get any more clear than that.

Okay?

And no, since denying the doctrine of the rapture, as it's all too commonly understood by dispensationalists, is not inconsistent with, nor in any way denying, the doctrine of the general resurrection of humanity or the final gathering of the saints, I have in no way contradicted myself. Manasseh, this is not that difficult.

 

[Manasseh_]

Oh, brother! Manasseh, NO! I do not "in part believe there is a resurrection"! I fully, vigorously, and strenuously believe it. How many times do I have to say so?!? I've also stated -- in only my second post on this thread:

I've also said -- again, on the very first page of this forum:

I've deliberately highlighted the word "and" above to show that the two doctrines (one being that of 'the resurrection' and the other being that of 'the rapture') are, properly understood, mutually exclusive, separate, not one and the same.

So, to reiterate: I fully, vigorously, and strenuously believe in the resurrection.
And to quote myself again:

Okay?

And no, since denying the doctrine of the rapture, as it's all too commonly understood by dispensationalists, is not inconsistent with, nor in any way denying, the doctrine of the general resurrection of humanity or the final gathering of the saints, I have in no way contradicted myself. Manasseh, this is not that difficult.

You're absolutely correct, it's not that difficult
It's not difficult at all to see one of your statements is inconsistent
with the other.
If you wished to be clear and concise and have your states remain
consistent with each other then you most certainly should have
clarified both statements instead of having to backtrack and clarify them after the fact.

unless you believe that what somebody reads what you have posted they at the same time can read your mind also. ?

Whether you clarified at a later time what you do believe makes no difference, the 2 statements if read for what they say do contradict each other and there's no way around it, the only thing in the way is your refusal to admit you err'd

The one characteristic of men and one of the hardest things for men to say is "I was wrong , I made a mistake"

Personally I was one of the worst of them , guilty of all charges.
Then I was taught that this was one trait of humans that showed they desired not to be humble before God, but rather , especially in my case stubborn instead. After all, isn't this one of the most basic teachings of scripture, men who simply admitted to an error and also men who refused to admit to error only to save face and remain stubborn. Right from the start Adam and Eve did it, "the serpent beguilded me, "the woman you gave me said to eat it".

Do as you will.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

And no, since denying the doctrine of the rapture, as it's all too commonly understood by dispensationalists, is not inconsistent with, nor in any way denying, the doctrine of the general resurrection of humanity or the final gathering of the saints, I have in no way contradicted myself. Manasseh, this is not that difficult.

This is true, and it is one of the reasons why this word can create problems. Most people who use the term rapture are generally referring to the pre-trib variety. The concept of the rapture (as in a gathering of His elect to Him) is Scriptural. But generally when someone uses the term, they are referring to a specific timing for this event. I will often use the same terminology that others do in order to clarify a concept using the common vernacular. The reason is if I speak of the resurrection, many will see it as a completely different event than what they perceive the rapture to be. So I will use the term rapture when referring to the resurrection in order to explain that the concepts are merged and should be understood to refer to the same event Scripturally. I do the same thing with the term antichrist. But I do understand why you differentiate between the two.

 

[dcyates]

You're absolutely correct, it's not that difficult
It's not difficult at all to see one of your statements is inconsistent
with the other.
If you wished to be clear and concise and have your states remain
consistent with each other then you most certainly should have
clarified both statements instead of having to backtrack and clarify them after the fact.

unless you believe that what somebody reads what you have posted they at the same time can read your mind also. ?

Whether you clarified at a later time what you do believe makes no difference, the 2 statements if read for what they say do contradict each other and there's no way around it, the only thing in the way is your refusal to admit you err'd

The one characteristic of men and one of the hardest things for men to say is "I was wrong , I made a mistake"

Personally I was one of the worst of them , guilty of all charges.
Then I was taught that this was one trait of humans that showed they desired not to be humble before God, but rather , especially in my case stubborn instead. After all, isn't this one of the most basic teachings of scripture, men who simply admitted to an error and also men who refused to admit to error only to save face and remain stubborn. Right from the start Adam and Eve did it, "the serpent beguilded me, "the woman you gave me said to eat it".

Do as you will.

Sigh.

 

[dcyates]

This is true, and it is one of the reasons why this word can create problems. Most people who use the term rapture are generally referring to the pre-trib variety. The concept of the rapture (as in a gathering of His elect to Him) is Scriptural. But generally when someone uses the term, they are referring to a specific timing for this event. I will often use the same terminology that others do in order to clarify a concept using the common vernacular. The reason is if I speak of the resurrection, many will see it as a completely different event than what they perceive the rapture to be. So I will use the term rapture when referring to the resurrection in order to explain that the concepts are merged and should be understood to refer to the same event Scripturally. I do the same thing with the term antichrist. But I do understand why you differentiate between the two.

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

 

[chalkstc]

dc,

Why is it that you ignore what is written? Why does the HS use the 1000 about six times in Rev 20 if it is only figurative? And I think you would admit that symbols still point to a true substance......................house on the rock for example.

But you use the 1000 as being figurative to then say their is no Mill reign at all. Why?

What ECF ever said this before Augustine and maybe Riberra? How foolish imo.

As for the rapture thing, we have milked it but it's all been futile. Amill is as errant to me as dispensationalism is to both of us or pretrib for that matter.

peace Brother,
Frankie

 

[dcyates]

dc,

Why is it that you ignore what is written? Why does the HS use the 1000 about six times in Rev 20 if it is only figurative? And I think you would admit that symbols still point to a true substance......................house on the rock for example.

I'm not ignoring what is written. Rather I'm properly interpreting what is written.
And yes, of course symbols point to something. In this case, '1,000 years' points to a very lengthy period of time.

But you use the 1000 as being figurative to then say their is no Mill reign at all. Why?

Because as I've already noted, apocalyptic literature consists of highly symbolic language. Amillennialists regard the thousand years, like other numbers in revelation, to be symbolic. Instead of being a literal period of exactly one thousand years, the expression refers to a very long time, extending from the first coming of Christ to his Second Coming. During this entire period Satan's power is limited by the preaching of the gospel (Luke 10.18). The "last days" began with Jesus (Heb 1.2) and with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (acts 2.16, 17), and they will end when the "last day" arrives (John 6.39, 40, 44, 54; 11.24; 12.48). Instead of the optimism of the postmillenarian or the pessimism of the premillenarian, the amillenarian takes seriously the realism of Jesus' parable of the weeds among the wheat (Matt 13.24-30, 36-43), namely, that good and evil will develop side by side until the harvest, which is at the end of the age.

What ECF ever said this before Augustine and maybe Riberra? How foolish imo.

Clement of Alexandria and Origen are two examples.

As for the rapture thing, we have milked it but it's all been futile. Amill is as errant to me as dispensationalism is to both of us or pretrib for that matter.

peace Brother,
Frankie

And a hardy shabbat shalom to you, too, Frankie.

 

[Biblewriter]

I'm sorry, James. I initially missed this response from you and, while looking for another one, just now came across it. Thank you for it.
I certainly don't mind you appealing to the work of another scholar. In fact, I appreciate it. However, I have to say, the above is the opinion of only one man. (For a direct response to M. Cosby's argument, see R. Gundry, "A Brief Note on 'Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of [FONT=Symbol, serif]APANTHSIS [/FONT]in 1 Thessalonians 4:17'," BBR 6 [1996], 39-41. Gundry suggests that, despite the lack of those other "formal" elements of such Hellenistic receptions in this passage, other contextual matters continue to support the view that this term does indeed bear those connotations. See also, idem. "The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians," NTS 33 [1987], 161-78.)
If you'll indulge me, below is my appeal to several at least equally capable scholars:

In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we find the following definition for apantesis: "In 1 Th. 4:17 there will be, at the Lord's return, a rapture of his people to meet him. The word apantesis was used for the public welcome accorded to important visitors. Similarly Christians will welcome Christ, acclaiming him as Lord" (I:380-81).​

In the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology we read: "The use of apantesis in 1 Thess. 4:17 is noteworthy. The ancient expression for the civic welcome of an important visitor or the triumphal entry of a new ruler into the capital city and thus to his reign is applied to Christ.... The same thoughts occur in the parable of the ten virgins. The virgins leave to meet the bridegroom (eis apantesin tou nymphiou), i.e., the Lord, to whom they wish to give a festive reception (Matt. 25.1)" (I:325).​

In his commentary on 1 Thessalonians, G.K. Beale notes: "A number of commentators believe that reference to Christ's parousia (4:15) together with mention of resurrected saints meeting (eis apantesin) Christ in the clouds (4:17) reflects the Hellenistic background of the coming of kings or other dignitaries to a city. The king was typically met outside the city by a welcoming party that conducted the royal visitor back into the city (i.e., the saints conduct Christ back down to earth)" (IVPNT: 140f).​

Ernest Best, in his commentary observes: "Like the word parousia 'meeting' had a technical meaning in the Hellenistic world in relation to visits of dignitaries to cities (the two words appear together in Josephus, Ant. 11.327f); the visitor would be formally met by the citizens, or a deputation of them, who had gone out of the city for this purpose and would then be ceremoniously escorted back into the city." Later on, Best then asks the question: "Do the Lord and the saints remain 'in the air' or do they together ascend with him to heaven or descend with him to earth? If the Hellenistic associations of 'meeting' are pushed then the saints will escort the Lord back to earth, which would accord with that strain in apocalyptic thought which envisages a reign of Christ on earth" (BNTC: 199, 200).​

Similarly, F.F. Bruce comments: "When a dignitary paid an official visit[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]([/FONT][FONT=Symbol, serif]parousia[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif])[/FONT][/FONT]to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escort him back on the final stage of his journey was called the apanthsiV” (WBC: 102).​

As well, Gene L. Green's commentary testifies: "To meet (eis apantesin) was almost a technical term that described the custom of sending a delegation outside the city to receive a dignitary who was on his way to town. In Acts 28.15 Luke utilizes this word in his description of the way a delegation of Christians from Rome went out to receive Paul and his companions when he approached the imperial city.... The customary procedure was for the delegation to return to the city with the visiting dignitaries (Acts 28.16; also Matt. 25.6)" (PNTC: 226).​

Abraham J. Malherbe, in his work on 1 Thessalonians, states: "Another connotation (of the word apantesis) has also been found, which has been more widely accepted. In this technical sense, the word (apantesis) was used of citizens, or a group of them, going out of the city to meet a visiting dignitary and then escorting him back into the city (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.26-28, for a priest awaiting the parousia of Alexander in order to go out to meet [hypantesis] him)" (AB 32B: 277).​

According to University of Aberdeen's Professor of NT Exegesis, I. Howard Marshall: "It is here that his people go to 'meet the Lord'. Although this rests on a common OT phrase, the Greek word used here probably carries an allusion to the way in which a visiting dignitary might be met on the way to a city by a representative group of citizens who would then escort him back to the city. We may compare how Paul was met by the Roman Christians some miles from the city (Acts 28:15, where the same phrase is used). A further occurrence of the same idea in the context of the parousia is to be found in Mt. 25.6. If this is a correct interpretation, then we may well take the further step of deducing that the Lord's people go to meet him in order to escort him back to the earth and that this is where they shall always 'be with the Lord'. It is improbable that this permanent union takes place in the air or in heaven (4:14 note)" (NCBC: 131).​

In C.A. Wanamaker's commentary on 1 Thessalonians, he writes: "The expression[FONT=Symbol, serif]apanthsiV [/FONT]was a technical expression in Hellenistic Greek for the departure from a city of a delegation of citizens to meet an arriving dignitary in order to accord the person proper respect and honor by escorting the dignitary back to the city" (NIGTC: 175).​

Ben Witherington III explains: "But it was also the case that a royal visit to a city would be announced by a herald (see Ps. 24.7-10) and might well also be announced by a trumpet blast meant to alert those in the city that the king was coming.
"This imagery is pursued further in v. 17 with the use of the term apantesin. For example, Cicero says of Julius Caesar's victory tour through Italy in 49 B.C.: 'Just imagine what a meeting/royal welcome (apantesis) he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him' (Ad. Atticus 8.16.2; cf. 16.11.6 of Augustis: 'the municipalities are showing the boy remarkable favor... Wonderful apantesis and encouragement'). This word refers, then, to the actions of the greeting committee as it goes forth from the city to escort the royal person or dignitary into the city for his official visit."​

And finally, world-renowned NT scholar N.T. Wright, in his recent book Paul: In Fresh Perspective, teaches: "The word parousia itself, and the language of 'meeting' which Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4.17, is not, like so many of his key terms, familiar from the Septuagint. It evokes the scene, familiar from much Hellenistic and Roman writing, of a king or emperor paying a state visit to a city or province. As he approaches, the citizens come out to meet him at some distance from the city, not in order to hold a meeting out in the countryside, but to escort him into the city. ‘Meeting the Lord in the air’ is not a way of saying ‘in order then to stay safely away from the wicked world,’ it is the prelude to the implied triumphant return to earth where the Messiah will reign, and his people with him, as Lord, saviour and judge. And in that context parousia means what it means in imperial rhetoric: the royal presence of the true Lord or emperor" (pp. 55-56).​

I believe that if you check carefully, you will find that Cosby's argument (which is not an argument at all, but an admission of the failure of his own argument) is conclusive. The "money quote" from his report is:

"A computer search of the literature written during the several centuries surrounding Paul's era using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) produced 91 pages of citations of passages that employ forms of apanthsis.17 Yet only a minority of the uses of these terms describes formal receptions. For example, but not once to describe the meeting of a dignitary. Similarly, Josephus employs them 92 times, but only ten times in descriptions of formal receptions. In the LXX the noun a0pa/nthsij is used frequently in 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles and sporadically in other books, particularly 1-3 Maccabees. Often it designates the hostile meeting of armies, although it also describes virtually any kind of meeting.18

"footnote 18.

"Examples include Abigail going to meet David to prevent the killing of Nabal and his family (1 Sam 25:32, 34), David's messengers going to meet the disgraced ambassadors who had half their beards and clothes cut off (2 Sam 10:5), Shimei coming to curse David as he left Jerusalem before Absalom (1 Kgs 2:8), the elderly David rising to meet his wife Bathsheba (1 Kgs 2:19), Elisha's servant Gehazi going to meet the Shunammite woman with the sick child (2 Kgs 4:26), Azariah the prophet going to meet king Asa with a word from the Lord (2 Chr 15:2), Tobit going out to meet his daughter-in-law (Tob 11:6), Jonathan going to battle against Antiochus (1 Macc 12:41), and disorderly women flocking into a city (3 Macc 1:19)."

Gundry did not answer this portion of Cosby's paper. Instead, he only answered the additional portion in which Cosby also pointed out that when apantesis was used of a formal reception, it included certain formal elements which are missing in Paul's usage of this Greek word. Although this argument occupied the bulk of Cosby's paper, it was not the most important part. The important part was the results of the computer study.

This is, in my mind, conclusive. Cosby proved, to his chagrin, that apantesis sometimes meant a formal reception to meet someone and escort him back, but that is not what it usually meant.

He also pointed out that, among the Early Chruch Fathers, the only one of all of them that gave this explanation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 was Crysostem. This is also very significant.

 

[franky67]

There is NO rapture!!! No pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib! Nothing! The Bible does not teach a rapture of any kind!

Then what is Jesus doing here ?

Hebrews 9:28

"So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation, without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

He comes here for one reason, and one only, which is salvation.

In Revelation 19:11, Jesus comes for three reasons, to judge, make war, and to rule.