Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?

[Copperhead]

Well, we all have to admit, where one comes out on their eschatology is generally a result of their hermeneutics. And spending a lot of time in the Word may or not mean much of anything in terms of accuracy if one's hermeneutics leads them to read more in the text than what is there and the scripture never intended. Or using a mystic principle and conferring on the text some significantly deeper mystical meaning to the text than is really there. At that stage, one can commute just about any preconceived idea they want on the text.

The only principle that I know of that has stood the test of time in scripture exegesis, is this maxim....

"When the plain sense of scripture. makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word. at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning. unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages. and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

 

[jgr]

Guess you got hot to respond and didn't read the entire post. I made it clear that Paul was referring to individual Jews, and that he also stated that God is not thru with Israel.

Your entire post was not available when I quoted it. I couldn't quote what didn't exist.
John was also referring to individual Jews.
Paul was anguished regarding Israel, recognizing that only the believing remnant of faith and obedience, not the whole nation, would be saved. (Romans 9:2,27)

Look, you will not sway me. Obviously you are entrenched in your position. And I am too old and seen too much in this life for anyone to be able to guilt me in my view on this.

I have no illusions about swaying you. Age is invariably accompanied by incurability. The trauma of abandoning long held beliefs, even if erroneous, is frequently too great. These exchanges are more for the benefit of those who may be undecided, and are seeking evidence upon which to base their decisions.

One thing I have found that is a characteristic of much of Christianity, they tend to ignore 2/3 of the Bible in building their theology on these issues. And the Bereans were commended by the Holy Spirit for checking out daily the scriptures to see if what Paul taught them was true. And all they had was the OT.

You'll notice that God's covenant precedent declaration in Genesis 17:12 is in that part of the Bible that you may think is ignored. And the Bereans were confirming that the Christ of whom Paul preached (Acts 17:2,3) was indeed found in, and the fulfillment of, the OT (Acts 13:29).

Oh well, the vast majority of the Church over the centuries has tended to discard one topic in their various systematic theology texts that actually takes up 5/6ths of the Bible. Israel as a distinct entity, separate from the Church, and with its own purpose and destiny. It wasn't until Arnold Fruchtenbaum developed Israelology as a distinct part of Systematic Theology had it ever been addressed by the Church.

The historical true Christian Church has been overwhelmingly united in declaring that the Church, and the Church alone, His Body and Bride of those of faith and obedience exclusively, has been His purpose and intention from the beginning. Genesis 17:12 is His initial unequivocal declaration of that truth. Peter expresses its unbroken continuity perfectly under the New Covenant:

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

No two peoples of God there.

Incidentally, have you yet told us? What does Genesis 17:12 "not of thy seed" mean?

 

[jgr]

Several times I have said this but you ignore it because you cannot refute it
God has a plan that he will fulfill regardless of what you believe
You show no understanding of why God made Israel to become a nation again

You show no understanding of why Israel is where Jesus will come back to when He returns

You show no understanding of why Jerusalem is the reborn nation of Israel capital city

You show no understanding of why God said that Jerusalem will be the burdensome stone

You show no understanding of why God said a time of Jacobs(Israel) time of trouble

You show no understanding of why Hebrew is now becoming the reborn nation of Israel primary language
All you ever focus on is what you think makes your case - your failing to understand these simple facts reveals you have not given much thought to the overall matter

Hmm..."not of thy seed". About as simple as it gets.

If you can't understand that, how can you understand anything else?

 

[seventysevens]

Several times I have said this but you ignore it because you cannot refute it
God has a plan that he will fulfill regardless of what you believe
You show no understanding of why God made Israel to become a nation again

You show no understanding of why Israel is where Jesus will come back to when He returns

You show no understanding of why Jerusalem is the reborn nation of Israel capital city

You show no understanding of why God said that Jerusalem will be the burdensome stone

You show no understanding of why God said a time of Jacobs(Israel) time of trouble

You show no understanding of why Hebrew is now becoming the reborn nation of Israel primary language
All you ever focus on is what you think makes your case - your failing to understand these simple facts reveals you have not given much thought to the overall matter

Simple as it gets but yet more than you can handle

Hmm..."not of thy seed". About as simple as it gets.

If you can't understand that, how can you understand anything else?

 

[jgr]

"When the plain sense of scripture. makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word. at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning. unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages. and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Here is Scripture's very first prophecy:

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If you were to interpret this prophecy using your maxim, what would the result be?

Would it be literal?
Or spiritual?

 

[jgr]

Several times I have said this but you ignore it because you cannot refute it
God has a plan that he will fulfill regardless of what you believe
You show no understanding of why God made Israel to become a nation again

You show no understanding of why Israel is where Jesus will come back to when He returns

You show no understanding of why Jerusalem is the reborn nation of Israel capital city

You show no understanding of why God said that Jerusalem will be the burdensome stone

You show no understanding of why God said a time of Jacobs(Israel) time of trouble

You show no understanding of why Hebrew is now becoming the reborn nation of Israel primary language
All you ever focus on is what you think makes your case - your failing to understand these simple facts reveals you have not given much thought to the overall matter

Simple as it gets but yet more than you can handle

You gotta walk before you try to run.

Walking starts with Genesis 17:12.

Don't try to run before that.

 

[Copperhead]

Here is Scripture's very first prophecy:

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If you were to interpret this prophecy using your maxim, what would the result be?

Would it be literal?
Or spiritual?

First off, seed of the woman has always been a reference to the Messiah. Seed is always of the man. But seed of the woman suggest something special. And that is where Isaiah comes in.... the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Well, regarding the "thy seed", when compared with Daniel 2:43, a interesting picture emerges.

Daniel 2:43 (NKJV) As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Now, basic reading comprehension would suggest that if they are mingling with the seed of men, then they must be something other than the seed of men. Add to that Genesis 6 and things get interesting. Still just using the words as written, no twists and turns.

Genesis 6:2 (NKJV) that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

The Bene HaElohim (sons of God) in the OT is only used of Angels, starting with the oldest book of the Bible, Job. And that involves another hermeneutical principle.... the Law of First Mention. The Holy Spirit tends to use idioms in the same manner to mean similar things throughout scripture. Only when we get to the Messiah do we find that man can become a child of God thru Messiah.

The Daniel passage is in the section describing the world empires that will come. And the iron mixed with clay (seed mingling thing) is the last empire. So there must be some sort of mischief that characterizes the last days. Does genetic modification or Eugenics sound vaguely familiar? Moses didn't have those terms, but that is what was going on in Genesis 6.

And Yeshua said...

Matthew 24:37 (NKJV) But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

And from Genesis 6, the main thing that characterized that time was the intermingling with human women by fallen angels, along with evil. In other words, seed other than the seed of men mixing with the seed of men. Just like Daniel stated would characterize the final days.

If it was only evil that brought the flood, well we have probably matched anything that was evil back then over the last 20 centuries. So there must be something specific, and Daniel, Moses, and Yeshua point us to what that is.

Now... you ask if the my interpretation would be literal or spiritual (allegorical), most definitely literal. Without even breaking a sweat, using the hermeneutic principle I mentioned. It would explain the false messiah and those that are aligned with him, all of which the Lord will destroy at His coming.

 

[jgr]

First off, seed of the woman has always been a reference to the Messiah. Seed is always of the man. But seed of the woman suggest something special. And that is where Isaiah comes in.... the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Well, regarding the others, when compared with Daniel 2:43, a interesting picture emerges.

Daniel 2:43 (NKJV) As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Now, basic reading comprehension would suggest that if they are mingling with the seed of men, then they must be something other than the seed of men. Add to that Genesis 6 and things get interesting. Still just using the words as written, no twists and turns.

Genesis 6:2 (NKJV) that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

The Bene HaElohim (sons of God) in the OT is only used of Angels, starting with the oldest book of the Bible, Job. And that involves another hermeneutical principle.... the Law of First Mention. The Holy Spirit tends to use idioms in the same manner to mean similar things throughout scripture.

The Daniel passage is in the section describing the world empires that will come. And the iron mixed with clay (seed mingling thing) is the last empire. So there must be some sort of mischief that characterizes the last days. Does genetic modification or Eugenics sound vaguely familiar?

And Yeshua said...

Matthew 24:37 (NKJV) But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

And from Genesis 6, the main thing that characterized that time was the intermingling with human women by fallen angels, along with evil. In other words, seed other than the seed of men mixing with the seed of men. Just like Daniel stated would characterize the final days.

If it was only evil that brought the flood, well we have probably matched anything that was evil back then over the last 20 centuries. So there must be something specific, and Daniel, Moses, and Yeshua point us to what that is.

Now... you ask if the my interpretation would be literal or spiritual (allegorical), most definitely literal. Without even breaking a sweat, using the hermeneutic principle I mentioned. It would explain the false messiah and those that are aligned with him, all of which the Lord will destroy at His coming.

That's certainly original.

But there's probably not a Bible scholar dead or alive who doesn't interpret this as the "protoevangelium" prophecy of the gospel in a verse, a spiritual description of Christ's victory over Satan at Calvary.

Can you explain the disparity?

 

[Copperhead]

That's certainly original.

But there's probably not a Bible scholar dead or alive who doesn't interpret this as the "protoevangelium" prophecy of the gospel in a verse, a spiritual description of Christ's victory over Satan at Calvary.

Can you explain the disparity?

Nope. Don't waste my time worrying about why anyone else does what they do. Many in the pulpits don't even like to tackle end times stuff since it can be a minefield. And scholars, like lay people, are all over the map regarding such things.

What I expressed is hardly original.

There are many scholars who hold to the same analysis of the text as I put forth. I have come across YouTube videos recently from scholars that go into far more detail regarding this than I ever have. I just gave the short version. Some of the best I have seen on this stuff is from Dr. Chuck Missler. He has a extremely technical background and brings that to stuff like this. Dr. Walter Martin of "Bible Answer Man" fame back in the day held to this idea. And he wasn't a pre-trib holder, so he can't be pigeon holed into the dispensation / pre-trib mold.

Actually, the entire NT Gospel is in the names of the genealogy from Adam to Noah. That one is missed by many, both scholars and lay folks. I find it interesting that the entire Gospel was laid out prior to the Flood of Noah.

 

[jgr]

First off, seed of the woman has always been a reference to the Messiah. Seed is always of the man. But seed of the woman suggest something special. And that is where Isaiah comes in.... the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Well, regarding the "thy seed", when compared with Daniel 2:43, a interesting picture emerges.

Daniel 2:43 (NKJV) As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Now, basic reading comprehension would suggest that if they are mingling with the seed of men, then they must be something other than the seed of men. Add to that Genesis 6 and things get interesting. Still just using the words as written, no twists and turns.

Genesis 6:2 (NKJV) that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

The Bene HaElohim (sons of God) in the OT is only used of Angels, starting with the oldest book of the Bible, Job. And that involves another hermeneutical principle.... the Law of First Mention. The Holy Spirit tends to use idioms in the same manner to mean similar things throughout scripture. Only when we get to the Messiah do we find that man can become a child of God thru Messiah.

The Daniel passage is in the section describing the world empires that will come. And the iron mixed with clay (seed mingling thing) is the last empire. So there must be some sort of mischief that characterizes the last days. Does genetic modification or Eugenics sound vaguely familiar? Moses didn't have those terms, but that is what was going on in Genesis 6.

And Yeshua said...

Matthew 24:37 (NKJV) But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

And from Genesis 6, the main thing that characterized that time was the intermingling with human women by fallen angels, along with evil. In other words, seed other than the seed of men mixing with the seed of men. Just like Daniel stated would characterize the final days.

If it was only evil that brought the flood, well we have probably matched anything that was evil back then over the last 20 centuries. So there must be something specific, and Daniel, Moses, and Yeshua point us to what that is.

Now... you ask if the my interpretation would be literal or spiritual (allegorical), most definitely literal. Without even breaking a sweat, using the hermeneutic principle I mentioned. It would explain the false messiah and those that are aligned with him, all of which the Lord will destroy at His coming.

Re. your claim of literality.

God was literally speaking to a literal serpent. Therefore, with a literal interpretation, "thy seed" literally refers to the literal spawn of the literal serpent.

Any other interpretation is a departure from literality. There is no mention of "men" or anyone or anything else associated with "thy seed".

So the literal interpretation of "thy seed" is of course nonsense. The only comprehensible interpretation is a spiritual one which recognizes that it was Satan (who also is not literally mentioned, again thus requiring spiritual insight) inhabiting the serpent, with "thy seed" referring to Satan's demonic spawn who are at perpetual enmity with Christ (again not literally mentioned, again thus requiring spiritual insight).

Thus the whole verse overwhelmingly requires spiritual insight and discernment to establish its true meaning. Literality in this verse equals unmitigated nonsense.

 

[Copperhead]

Re. your claim of literality.

God was literally speaking to a literal serpent. Therefore, with a literal interpretation, "thy seed" literally refers to the literal spawn of the literal serpent.

Any other interpretation is a departure from literality. There is no mention of "men" or anyone or anything else associated with "thy seed".

So the literal interpretation of "thy seed" is of course nonsense. The only comprehensible interpretation is a spiritual one which recognizes that it was Satan (who also is not literally mentioned, again thus requiring spiritual insight) inhabiting the serpent, with "thy seed" referring to Satan's demonic spawn who are at perpetual enmity with Christ (again not literally mentioned, again thus requiring spiritual insight).

Thus the whole verse overwhelmingly requires spiritual insight and discernment to establish its true meaning. Literality in this verse equals unmitigated nonsense.

Oh boy.... it is one thing to be literal. there is such a thing as hyper literal. The same analogy would be with this one....

Psalms 17:8 (NKJV) Keep me as the apple of Your eye;
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,

So then.... Does God have feathers? How ridiculous.

God is speaking to the serpent, but that is Satan in the form of a serpent. And my explanation does a reasonable job of showing how Satan, along with other fallen angels, can intermingle their genetics with humans. Some have problems with the idea of angels intermingling their genetics with humans, but that usually stems from putting technical limitations on fallen angels who are far superior to us and have a strong desire to screw things up. Never underestimate what a psychotic super cherub is capable of.

It happened once before in Genesis, even Jude expounds on it as does Peter in their letters. and it explains how the false Messiah will be one that many will follow and.....

Revelation 13:4 (NKJV) So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

If this guy is a cross of human and Satan genetics, he will be one that will put fear into men so that they will proclaim what they do in that verse. And it comports with what Daniel told us about the final kingdom on the earth, where "they will mingle their seed with the seed of men". The "they" are not human.

But you have taken the allegorical / typological approach to hermeneutics. Not really that surprising. Many have since Origen introduced Hellenistic Greek thought into Bible hermeneutics in the 3rd century. Augustine took the concept and ran with it, so that it became a standard in the church even till today. And that method allows for one to put any spin on the text that suits them. There is no objective standard.

 

[jgr]

Oh boy.... it is one thing to be literal. there is such a thing as hyper literal. The same analogy would be with this one....

Psalms 17:8 (NKJV) Keep me as the apple of Your eye;
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,

So then.... Does God have feathers? How ridiculous.

God is speaking to the serpent, but that is Satan in the form of a serpent. And my explanation does a reasonable job of showing how Satan, along with other fallen angels, can intermingle their genetics with humans. Some have problems with the idea of angels intermingling their genetics with humans, but that usually stems from putting technical limitations on fallen angels who are far superior to us and have a strong desire to screw things up. Never underestimate what a psychotic super cherub is capable of.

It happened once before in Genesis, even Jude expounds on it as does Peter in their letters. and it explains how the false Messiah will be one that many will follow and.....

Revelation 13:4 (NKJV) So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

If this guy is a cross of human and Satan genetics, he will be one that will put fear into men so that they will proclaim what they do in that verse. And it comports with what Daniel told us about the final kingdom on the earth, where "they will mingle their seed with the seed of men". The "they" are not human.

But you have taken the allegorical / typological approach to hermeneutics. Not really that surprising. Many have since Origen introduced Hellenistic Greek thought into Bible hermeneutics in the 3rd century. Augustine took the concept and ran with it, so that it became a standard in the church even till today. And that method allows for one to put any spin on the text that suits them. There is no objective standard.

Whatever legitimacy your interpretations may have, the point is that none of them can be derived from a literal reading of the text. There must be additional spiritual/allegorical/typological extrapolation applied.

Scripture unquestionably contains prophecies which are literal as well as those which are spiritual. The challenge is to be able to determine the difference through the judicious application of spiritual, scriptural, and historical knowledge, wisdom, and discernment.

But the often-heard declaration that "all prophecy that has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally" is invalidated in Scripture's very first prophecy, the spiritual prophecy of Genesis 3:15.

 

[Copperhead]

Literal is probably a loaded word and not the right one. I really prefer to say the approach I use is taking the text seriously as opposed to literally. I just sometimes get too quick and say "literally" without thinking that there is always someone who will nit pick over that choice of words and it will derail the discussion. Like it has here.

And I guess I am just old fashioned. All those semesters in college taking literature and writing classes, I like to follow sound reading comprehension, sentence and paragraph diagramming, etc practices and try not to read more into the text than what is there. Working on a lot of mathematics problems in other classes reinforced that concept.

And going back to the basics always seems to avoid minefields of problems.... when the plain sense of the passage makes sense, then seek no other sense unless the context suggests that.

 

[Riberra]

But the often-heard declaration that "all prophecy that has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally" is invalidated in Scripture's very first prophecy, the spiritual prophecy of Genesis 3:15.

Jesus heels have been LITERALLY BRUISED At the Crucifixion WHEN JESUS WAS NAILED ON THE CROSS ...Those who have caused that Jesus was put to death were the Scribes and High Priest Pharisee that Jesus identified in John 8:44 as being descendant of Cain [the first murderer Genesis 4]..and of their father the devil.

Genesis 3:15.
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[jgr]

And going back to the basics always seems to avoid minefields of problems.... when the plain sense of the passage makes sense, then seek no other sense unless the context suggests that.

The problem that can arise is scriptural complacency, wherein there is no motivation to confirm harmony and consistency across the whole spectrum of Scripture. The Bereans whom you cited earlier provide a good example for us. They could have accepted Paul's teaching without question, and would have been perfectly justifiable in doing so. But they determined to go the extra scriptural mile to confirm that his teaching was consistent and harmonious with the revealed OT truth available to them. They were the better equipped students of the Word for doing so.

We should do likewise.

 

[jgr]

Jesus heels have been LITERALLY BRUISED ON THE CROSS WHEN JESUS WAS NAILED ON THE CROSS ...

Genesis 3:15.
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Agreed, they were literally bruised. But God is talking to the serpent. It was not the serpent who literally bruised them. It was Satan, inhabiting the serpent, who was indirectly responsible for bruising them, but he did not literally bruise them himself either. That was done by the Roman soldier(s).

Recognition of the role of Satan and the way in which he was responsible is the spiritual knowledge which is necessary for proper understanding of that portion of the verse.

 

[Riberra]

Agreed, they were literally bruised. But God is talking to the serpent. It was not the serpent who literally bruised them. It was Satan, inhabiting the serpent, who was indirectly responsible for bruising them, but he did not literally bruise them himself either. That was done by the Roman soldier(s).

Recognition of the role of Satan and the way in which he was responsible is the spiritual knowledge which is necessary for proper understanding of that portion of the verse.

Those who have caused that Jesus was put to death were the Scribes and High Priest Pharisee that Jesus identified in John 8:44 as being descendant of Cain [the first murderer Genesis 4]..and of their father the devil.

John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.


Revelation 12:9 identify Satan himself as being the serpent ...the OLD SERPENT making reference to Genesis 3...

Genesis 3:15.
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[jgr]

Those who have caused that Jesus was put to death were the Scribes and High Priest Pharisee that Jesus identified in John 8:44 as being descendant of Cain [the first murderer Genesis 4]..and of their father the devil.

John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.


Revelation 12 identify Satan himself as being the serpent ...that OLD SERPENT making reference to Genesis 3...

Genesis 3:15.
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

True.

 

[Riberra]

True.

Thus you agree than that part of the prophecy have been LITERALLY fulfilled as it was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 .

 

[jgr]

Thus you agree than that part of the prophecy have been LITERALLY fulfilled as it was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 .

Was there a literal serpent named Satan, literally present at Christ's crucifixion, literally bruising Christ's heel(s)?

That's what Genesis 3:15 literally says.