Is the rapture a lie?

[expos4ever]

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30

Again - when did this happen?

While I confess what I am about to post is a knee-jerk response, I would bet it happened in the first century. I need to look into this further.

One thing I am confident of, though: the "coming on the clouds" is not a downward return to Earth but rather an upward ascent in vindication for the Son of Man. Matthew is alluding to this text from Daniel 7:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed

Matthew - unlike many rapture adherents - knows his Old Testament. In this text from Daniel - very well known to Matthew's contemporaries - Jesus is ascending after His resurrection to be installed as Lord of all creation.

Biblically, "coming on the clouds" clearly does not refer to Jesus's return, but rather to His ascension.

 

[seventysevens]

Paul taught it? Where is your verse?

I told you I don't believe the early church believed in the rapture, which is what you said. Stop trying to make it about the OP when you know this is a different discussion.

In your own words YOU say that you don't believe the early church believed in the rapture even admitting that you do not know where Paul talked about it

So you have no place to substantiate what you say - what scripture and where do you get the notion of what you believe?
In all this time why have you not used your time wisely to do the research on it
IF you really wanted to know you would not be waiting on someone in a forum to tell you -

 

[seventysevens]

While I confess what I am about to post is a knee-jerk response, I would bet it happened in the first century. I need to look into this further.

One thing I am confident of, though: the "coming on the clouds" is not a downward return to Earth but rather an upward ascent in vindication for the Son of Man. Matthew is alluding to this text from Daniel 7:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed

Matthew - unlike many rapture adherents - knows his Old Testament. In this text from Daniel - very well known to Matthew's contemporaries - Jesus is ascending after His resurrection to be installed as Lord of all creation.

Biblically, "coming on the clouds" clearly does not refer to Jesus's return, but rather to His ascension.

Acts1
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The only 2 ways a person can come up with such a view as yours
1 someone taught it to them and they believed it
2 they did not read the entire bible and therefore do have have the full understanding of what the bible says and they try to use a carnal human reasoning to make sense of it resulting in an incorrect understanding

Jesus returns to earth in the same way he left earth - and he returns to the same place on earth in which he left the earth
You would know this if you read the entire bible - which is comprised of 66 books written by various authors at various times through the course of history

 

[Marvin Knox]

He didn't deny the Trinity (from what I saw), he just said it isn't directly taught in scripture.

He does deny the Trinity.
Even Ray Charles can see that.
Why don't you ask him?

The modern idea of the Trinity didn't exist until the first Ecumenical council of nicea. Look up the Arian heresy, as well as docetism, gnosticism, and any other early church heresy.

I have looked them up and studied them as well.

And your point is?

That doesn't mean the Trinity is a false doctrine, because the apostolic councils are authoritative in their interpretation of scripture. Just don't act like there was a concensus on the matter before 450AD.

I made no such claim and I "acted" in no such way.

You calling him a heretic, and refusing to respond to his actual point is just another example of ad hominem fallacy.

One who denies the Trinity as he obviously does is a heretic as I see it.

As for refusing to respond to his point - I have pointed to the fact that the rapture (as with the Trinity) isn't "proven" or argued with single all inclusive scriptures which state the doctrine in no uncertain terms.

As with many and even most doctrines - the truth must be arrived at by comparing scripture with scripture in a systematic way.

Those who refuse to consider the scriptures as a whole when studying the validity of a doctrine will quite often find themselves failing what is obviously a test by God wherein His method of presenting truth has given them enough rope to hang themselves.

Whether that noose will find them outside of salvation when all is said and done or just cause them loss or lack of reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ for believers remains to be seen in his case as it does with many others here in the forum.

"No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." 1 Corinthians 11:19

 

[expos4ever]

Acts1
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

I have never denied that Jesus will return.

I have simply demonstrated that texts that use the phrase "coming on the clouds" almost certainly do not refer to a returning Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

The only 2 ways a person can come up with such a view as yours
1 someone taught it to them and they believed it
2 they did not read the entire bible and therefore do have have the full understanding of what the bible says and they try to use a carnal human reasoning to make sense of it resulting in an incorrect understanding

What silliness - you again evade your opponent's arguments, and season it with some insults.

I have shown that Daniel 7 uses the phrase "coming on the clouds" to refer to an upward movement of vindication, not a descent. You have not dealt with this - you simply try to insult your way out of the extremely difficult spot this puts you in.

It's time to play fair: Do you deny that Biblically "coming on the clouds" refers to an upward movement from earth to heaven, not a descent from heaven to earth?

There is a lot of irony in your post - you claim to be a student of the entire corpus of Scripture, yet you brazenly ignore my clearly Biblical argument.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Not to worry, I've known for sometime you have no answer?

The answer will be found by comparing scripture with scripture - something you refuse to do or allow others to do when discussing the doctrine.

Instead you make silly demands in the manner of "show me the scripture which says that exact thing".

By the way do you believe in the Trinity?

That is to ask if you believe in the one true God beside whom there is no other and that the one true God exists eternally as three distinct persons, each one of which possesses all of the attributes necessary to be rightly consider the one true God.

 

[redleghunter]

I rest my case.

Didn't think you had a point until I read more posts. Well argued.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.......
Matthew - unlike many rapture adherents - knows his Old Testament. In this text from Daniel - very well known to Matthew's contemporaries - Jesus is ascending after His resurrection to be installed as Lord of all creation. Biblically, "coming on the clouds" clearly does not refer to Jesus's return, but rather to His ascension.

Point well taken in the Spirit it was given.

I won't argue with you about it except to say that the Lord said, "“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." Matthew 24:29-30

The ascent of the Lord did not take place after the tribulation period and there will be no mourning in Heaven - particularly around the throne of God.

 

[seventysevens]

One thing I am confident of, though: the "coming on the clouds" is not a downward return to Earth but rather an upward ascent

Biblically, "coming on the clouds" clearly does not refer to Jesus's return, but rather to His ascension.

Your argument is clearly in error -
IF you understand that Jesus is speaking about the events of what will be happening on earth immediately prior to Jesus return to earth you will know that coming on the clouds in Great Glory is Jesus coming down from heaven to earth

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Instead you make silly demands in the manner of "show me the scripture which says that exact thing".

Silly? Most truths in the bible have exact scripture to back them up, yet you are telling me the overall concept of the request is silly? In your attempt to make me look foolish, by referring to my way as silly when it is absolutely reasonable, you're doing the opposite.

By the way do you believe in the Trinity?

I believe what the bible clearly states as a fact. Wasn't it you who said I cannot get into that here? Are you trying to get me in trouble?

I think the site knows exactly how some of us feel about that, and I personally think it's a serious flaw we cannot give our views on it. Still, I have made my beliefs known mildly here and there and have never had too much trouble, and for that reason, I see no reason to push it.

That should answer your question.

 

[redleghunter]

For pretribbers, the Rapture is about getting rid of Christians so God can focus on "his people", the Jews.

They may have a point.

Luke 21: NASB
20“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21“Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23“Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;24and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The above is obviously speaking of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Jews throughout and outside the Roman empire.

Romans 11: NASB
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”

27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

 

[redleghunter]

The only reason there are "non-denominational" churches is because some men chose to view/interpret the view in their church differently and went out and started their own church teaching their own personal view and you all have fallen into the same pit of false teaching. These men aren't part of denominations because they hate accountability.

I know of many Roman Catholics who tell the very same thing to Protestants. What's your point? Are you swimming back to the other side of the Tiber?

 

[☦Marius☦]

In your own words YOU say that you don't believe the early church believed in the rapture even admitting that you do not know where Paul talked about it

So you have no place to substantiate what you say - what scripture and where do you get the notion of what you believe?
In all this time why have you not used your time wisely to do the research on it
IF you really wanted to know you would not be waiting on someone in a forum to tell you -

Yes. I don't know where Paul talked about the rapture because he didn't talk about it.

Still waiting on that verse you claim exists lol.

Oh so now you won't give me the verse because I don't "really want to know".

Do you actually think that is a valid way to debate a point?

No offense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh so now you won't give me the verse because I don't "really want to know".

The signs of a very weak argument to come.

Now I can't wait to hear about that verse, probably something we will never get now.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The signs of a very weak argument to come.

Now I can't wait to hear about that verse, probably something we will never get now.

I've been waiting almost 2 days for it! Wouldn't count on it ever happening.

 

[seventysevens]

Yes. I don't know where Paul talked about the rapture because he didn't talk about it.

Still waiting on that verse you claim exists lol.

Oh so now you won't give me the verse because I don't "really want to know".

Do you actually think that is a valid way to debate a point?

No offense.

I said that IF you really wanted to know this you would not be waiting on me to tell you, a person who truly wants the truth will seek it out instead of waiting for a person on the forum to tell them - it shows you have no initiative , being lazy and expecting someone else to do you for what you can do for yourself - if you do not know where Paul talks about the rapture indicates that you have little to no knowledge of bible prophecy yet you want to debate it
When you assert that Paul did not talk about it when scripture is very clear he did then that shows your failure to do due diligence on your part - it has been proven many many times that people who come across as you do have no knowledge but pretend that you do - just like someone who insisted that the phrase "coming on the clouds" does not mean returning to earth - having proved him wrong he gets an attitude - happens everyday- you are prime candidate to do the same because you refuse to try to find the answer on your own

We are living in a time of apostasy where people turn from the truth and believe things that are not true because they do not seek to find answers and simply accept whatever a preachers says and not verify if what they say is true - you operate on a blind faith that is blinding you
Scripture showing Paul talking about it- and even the literal definition has been posted in this thread - but you too lazy to read and learn

 

[☦Marius☦]

I said that IF you really wanted to know this you would not be waiting on me to tell you, a person who truly wants the truth will seek it out instead of waiting for a person on the forum to tell them - it shows you have no initiative , being lazy and expecting someone else to do you for what you can do for yourself - if you do not know where Paul talks about the rapture indicates that you have little to no knowledge of bible prophecy yet you want to debate it
When you assert that Paul did not talk about it when scripture is very clear he did then that shows your failure to do due diligence on your part - it has been proven many many times that people who come across as you do have no knowledge but pretend that you do - just like someone who insisted that the phrase "coming on the clouds" does not mean returning to earth - having proved him wrong he gets an attitude - happens everyday- you are prime candidate to do the same because you refuse to try to find the answer on your own

We are living in a time of apostasy where people turn from the truth and believe things that are not true because they do not seek to find answers and simply accept whatever a preachers says and not verify if what they say is true - you operate on a blind faith that is blinding you
Scripture showing Paul talking about it- and even the literal definition has been posted in this thread - but you too lazy to read and learn

Just admit you don't have a verse.

I've never seen a person go to this length to try to make excuses for why they can't answer a point.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I said that IF you really wanted to know this you would not be waiting on me to tell you, a person who truly wants the truth will seek it out instead of waiting for a person on the forum to tell them - it shows you have no initiative , being lazy and expecting someone else to do you for what you can do for yourself - if you do not know where Paul talks about the rapture indicates that you have little to no knowledge of bible prophecy yet you want to debate it
When you assert that Paul did not talk about it when scripture is very clear he did then that shows your failure to do due diligence on your part - it has been proven many many times that people who come across as you do have no knowledge but pretend that you do - just like someone who insisted that the phrase "coming on the clouds" does not mean returning to earth - having proved him wrong he gets an attitude - happens everyday- you are prime candidate to do the same because you refuse to try to find the answer on your own

We are living in a time of apostasy where people turn from the truth and believe things that are not true because they do not seek to find answers and simply accept whatever a preachers says and not verify if what they say is true - you operate on a blind faith that is blinding you
Scripture showing Paul talking about it- and even the literal definition has been posted in this thread - but you too lazy to read and learn

If I'm lazy for not wanting to search the entire writings of Paul for one verse, then wouldn't that make you even more lazy for not being willing to type this verse you already claim to know, to help a brother out?

 

[Marvin Knox]

That should answer your question.

It does indeed.