There is no Rapture

[sparow]

Is that what you expect Jesus to say to Paul?

I would not wast my time presuming to know what Jesus will say to Paul; but I know what I say to Paul and Paul's epistles.

 

[ozso]

I would not wast my time presuming to know what Jesus will say to Paul; but I know what I say to Paul and Paul's epistles.

And what's that?

 

[sparow]

And what's that?

Stay where I can see you Paul, Jesus is my teacher and my Father in heaven is my authority.

 

[ozso]

Stay where I can see you Paul, Jesus is my teacher and my Father in heaven is my authority.

How do you feel about the Gospel according to Luke?

I'm asking that since Luke is the one who wrote about Paul in The Acts of the Apostles.

 

[sparow]

How do you feel about the Gospel according to Luke?

I'm asking that since Luke is the one who wrote about Paul in The Acts of the Apostles.

I feel good about the Gospels, and recognize them as the historical record of the old covenant being confirmed; even the new covenant is the old covenant being confirmed, or should I say half confirmed, with half still to go.


Acts is a historical account, according to one observer, of what the apostles did at a particular point in time; a month later the same observer may have observed something else. It has been said that Acts was an attempt to reconcile Waring factions in the church, remembering Paul threatened to curse some from the Jerusalem church for preaching a different gospel. In any case there is no reason to assume that the Acts of the apostles always pleased God.


Jesus said to Peter, “beware lest YOU be deceived”. I believe Perter was deceived, and that he also over came the deception.

 

[ozso]

I feel good about the Gospels, and recognize them as the historical record of the old covenant being confirmed; even the new covenant is the old covenant being confirmed, or should I say half confirmed, with half still to go.


Acts is a historical account, according to one observer, of what the apostles did at a particular point in time; a month later the same observer may have observed something else. It has been said that Acts was an attempt to reconcile Waring factions in the church, remembering Paul threatened to cures some from the Jerusalem church for preaching a different gospel. In any case there is no reason to assume that the Acts of the apostles always pleased God.


Jesus said to Peter, “beware lest YOU be deceived”. I believe Perter was deceived, and that he also over came the deception.

Was Peter deceived when he wrote "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him"?

 

[JohnD70X7]

One fact from Scripture completely refutes the idea of a pre-rapture. That fact is that the Antichrist will defeat and execute Christians. This fact is stated several times in the Book of Daniel and Revelation (Daniel 7:21, Revelation 13:7, Revelation 20:4). If Christians are persecuted and killed during the reign of the Antichrist, then there can be no pre-rapture. That would otherwise be a clear contradiction.

Jesus will only return once and that is at the end of the reign of the Antichrist.

I don't know of any church father who believed in a pre-rapture, nor do I know anyone who believed in dispensationalism.

First of all, I believe the thread title is a little misleading. It should read no [pre-trib] rapture... which it appears the OP intended to convey.

Secondly, once the 70th Week of Daniel is properly divided, then the prophecies about the rapture all line up.

The 70th Week of Daniel is one seven-year period, but it is not one seven-year tribulation. It is two three-and-a-half-year tribulations divided thusly:

• 1260 days (3.5 years) Revelation 11:3 / Revelation 12:6
• 42 months (3.5 years) Revelation 11:2 / Revelation 13:5
• time, times, and half a time (3.5 years) Daniel 7:25 / Daniel 12:7 / Revelation 12:14

Based on the 360 day prophetic year.

The Great Tribulation, according to Jesus in Matthew 24:21-22 will be a time like no other before or since and unless the days were cut short no flesh would remain alive. Placing it in the last half of the 70th Week of Daniel. The first half will be the global persecution of the saints (Revelation 12:17- 13:18). And the mark of the beast (which could simply be a tattoo of the number 666) will be a sign tracking method to hunt down the one people on Earth who will not receive the mark: Christians (Matthew 24:24) to execute.

The rapture (according to Daniel 12:11-12) will take place on day 1335 (of the 70th Week of Daniel). And the only way to know when that is near will be when the Jewish Temple sacrifice is abated in the last days 1290 days from the end of time.

So, the rapture will occur:

• PRE- Great Tribulation
• MID- 70th Week of Daniel
• POST-Believer's Tribulation

This is not traditional mid trib eschatology since it holds to one seven-year tribulation period.

 

[sparow]

Was Peter deceived when he wrote "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him"?

I am not familiar with that verse, so I am not able to say. I believe Peter was deceived by Paul, but how relevant is that; on a scale of 0 to 100, I would say 0 relevance; should I be saved Paul will receive no credit, should I be lost Paul will receive no credit for that either.


Being deceived is not necessarily fatal, so long as the deception does not cause one to neglect the commandments and trust in wrong things.


There was an occasion when the scribes led Israel astray, Israel was lost except for a remnant that came out; the point being, having an excuse doesn't help; if you are depending on Paul, you need to make sure he can deliver.

 

[ozso]

I am not familiar with that verse, so I am not able to say. I believe Peter was deceived by Paul, but how relevant is that; on a scale of 0 to 100, I would say 0 relevance; should I be saved Paul will receive no credit, should I be lost Paul will receive no credit for that either.


Being deceived is not necessarily fatal, so long as the deception does not cause one to neglect the commandments and trust in wrong things.


There was an occasion when the scribes led Israel astray, Israel was lost except for a remnant that came out; the point being, having an excuse doesn't help; if you are depending on Paul, you need to make sure he can deliver.

Jesus sent his apostles to teach the world. So why ignore what they have to say? You know don't you that you're completely depending on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John when it comes to what Jesus said. Going by what seems to be your line of reasoning how can you depend on what they wrote? How do you know they didn't make up stuff Jesus said in the gospels they wrote? When it comes to the New Testament, when you start concluding that parts of it are dubious because those who contributed to it were deceived or false, the whole thing starts to fall apart. If you discount Paul, then you end up discounding Luke and Peter and everyone else associated with them. If Paul is fake, then so is Luke. If Luke is fake, so is his Gospel. If Luke's Gospel is fake, then the other three are probably fake as well.

 

[sparow]

Jesus sent his apostles to teach the world. So why ignore what they have to say? You know don't you that you're completely depending on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John when it comes to what Jesus said. Going by what seems to be your line of reasoning how can you depend on what they wrote? How do you know they didn't make up stuff Jesus said in the gospels they wrote? When it comes to the New Testament, when you start concluding that parts of it are dubious because those who contributed to it were deceived or false, the whole thing starts to fall apart. If you discount Paul, then you end up discounding Luke and Peter and everyone else associated with them. If Paul is fake, then so is Luke. If Luke is fake, so is his Gospel. If Luke's Gospel is fake, then the other three are probably fake as well.

Philosophically, I disagree with every thing you have said.


Jesus sent his apostles to teach the lost sheep of Israel something old but in new light, and this overflows to the world; Israel was always to be a light to the world.


I do not ignore what the authentic apostles say, first understanding that they are human like me. Jesus established an important rule, found in the Gospels: If Jesus says something it is only true when His Father is a second witness to it. Jesus in every way confirms the authenticity of the OT, and the OT authenticates Jesus. So it is with the NT writings they need to be confirmed by the OT, these two witnesses have to be in agreement.


In the Bible there is a system of repeating patterns, types and anti-types, repeating history and repeating prophesy; It is not coincidental that Jesus chose 12 apostles, one for each tribe, that He sent out 70 apostles to establish the new covenant, that there are four Gospels, each showing Christ in one of four forms, as a lion, as an eagle, as a bullock, and as a man; the symbols that were on the banners that Israel camped behind in the wilderness. Paul does not fit into these patterns, he is an odd bod. There are other patterns concerning false prophets that I am not familiar with, but much is said about them in the OT; I believe Paul is an anti-type of those.


The NT has been edited and likely the OT also, beware. Jesus selected 12 ordinary men, yet Paul is a superman.

 

[ozso]

Philosophically, I disagree with every thing you have said.


Jesus sent his apostles to teach the lost sheep of Israel something old but in new light, and this overflows to the world; Israel was always to be a light to the world.


I do not ignore what the authentic apostles say, first understanding that they are human like me. Jesus established an important rule, found in the Gospels: If Jesus says something it is only true when His Father is a second witness to it. Jesus in every way confirms the authenticity of the OT, and the OT authenticates Jesus. So it is with the NT writings they need to be confirmed by the OT, these two witnesses have to be in agreement.


In the Bible there is a system of repeating patterns, types and anti-types, repeating history and repeating prophesy; It is not coincidental that Jesus chose 12 apostles, one for each tribe, that He sent out 70 apostles to establish the new covenant, that there are four Gospels, each showing Christ in one of four forms, as a lion, as an eagle, as a bullock, and as a man; the symbols that were on the banners that Israel camped behind in the wilderness. Paul does not fit into these patterns, he is an odd bod. There are other patterns concerning false prophets that I am not familiar with, but much is said about them in the OT; I believe Paul is an anti-type of those.


The NT has been edited and likely the OT also, beware. Jesus selected 12 ordinary men, yet Paul is a superman.

How can you trust what Luke wrote about Jesus, if he lied about Paul being chosen by Jesus to be His Apostle?

 

[sparow]

How can you trust what Luke wrote about Jesus, if he lied about Paul being chosen by Jesus to be His Apostle?

It is not Luke that I trust, it is Jesus. If I found something wrong with Luke's Gospel I would quickly say so, other wise it is good sheep feed.

If Luke lied about Paul claiming to have been chosen by Jesus; it would not make sense; it is more likely that Luke believed Paul's false claim, or else a drunken Roman Governor was editing some of the epistles. Luke's Gospel was written close to the time Paul died; Luke did not mention Paul or any changes to Laws.

 

[ozso]

It is not Luke that I trust, it is Jesus. If I found something wrong with Luke's Gospel I would quickly say so, other wise it is good sheep feed.

If Luke lied about Paul claiming to have been chosen by Jesus; it would not make sense; it is more likely that Luke believed Paul's false claim, or else a drunken Roman Governor was editing some of the epistles. Luke's Gospel was written close to the time Paul died; Luke did not mention Paul or any changes to Laws.

You have to trust that what Luke wrote about Jesus is true. And Luke wrote about Paul the same as he wrote about Jesus.

The problem with the conspiracy theories you're coming up with is they can be applied to the entire Gospel, which is what atheists do to try disproving the Bible. So you're basically half way in their camp.

 

[sparow]

You have to trust that what Luke wrote about Jesus is true. And Luke wrote about Paul the same as he wrote about Jesus.

The problem with the conspiracy theories you're coming up with is they can be applied to the entire Gospel, which is what atheists do to try disproving the Bible. So you're basically half way in their camp.

Calling me names won't help. I do not use Paul, I have no intention of doing so; what Peter and Luke said about Paul 2000 years ago carries no weight with me; neither Peter, Luke or Paul are authorities; only the Father has authority, and only Jesus is teacher; neither mention Paul unless by a different name.

 

[ozso]

Calling me names won't help. I do not use Paul, I have no intention of doing so; what Peter and Luke said about Paul 2000 years ago carries no weight with me; neither Peter, Luke or Paul are authorities; only the Father has authority, and only Jesus is teacher; neither mention Paul unless by a different name.

You might as well say that about what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus 2000 years ago. Your line of reasoning invalidates the Bible, because not one word of it was written by the Father or Jesus.

 

[sparow]

You might as well say that about what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus 2000 years ago. Your line of reasoning invalidates the Bible, because not one word of it was written by the Father or Jesus.

Well no. Only Paul has elevated himself to the position of having authority to change the laws. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have done nothing more than was required of them, even to the point of being deceived.

 

[ozso]

Well no. Only Paul has elevated himself to the position of having authority to change the laws. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have done nothing more than was required of them, even to the point of being deceived.

Is it that you want to dismiss the epistles of Paul because they interfere with the idea that Christians are supposed to practice Judaism?

 

[sparow]

Is it that you want to dismiss the epistles of Paul because they interfere with the idea that Christians are supposed to practice Judaism?

It is strange that you would say that; Judaism is the son of Pharisee-ism; I have always considered Paul's removal of circumcision to be the Pharisee's fighting back.

 

[ozso]

It is strange that you would say that; Judaism is the son of Pharisee-ism; I have always considered Paul's removal of circumcision to be the Pharisee's fighting back.

Do you think Paul alone established the removal of circumcision? I supposed that means you think he was in charge of all the other apostles. No wonder you're calling him superman. Also I was talking about Mosaic Judaism, not Talmudic Judaism. Do you disregard the epistles of Paul because they interfere with the idea that Christians should be practicing the Mosaic Covenant?

 

[sparow]

Do you think Paul alone established the removal of circumcision? I supposed that means you think he was in charge of all the other apostles. No wonder you're calling him superman. Also I was talking about Mosaic Judaism, not Talmudic Judaism. Do you disregard the epistles of Paul because they interfere with the idea that Christians should be practicing the Mosaic Covenant?

You are asking for speculation; I am sure the God of Israel had no part in the removal of circumcision; circumcision is still practised by some, and the reason some do not get circumcised is that many doctors do not approve of it.


I believe Paul did not work alone but was an errant boy for the Pharisees. There was contention between Paul and the real apostles from Jerusalem; Paul would have led the apostles had they allowed it.


I reject Paul for infinite reasons, essentially, Paul is a distraction from Christ and His teaching,; if we consider Isaiah's prophesy, “they will use Christ's name only and wear their own apparel.” Paul becomes the apparel many Christians wear; many wear other apparel, but few wear the apparel provided by the Bridegroom; the many should expect to be cast out.


There is the covenant of the great living God of Israel; then there is: the covenant according to Moses, (Moses failed and was not allowed to enter the promised land); the covenant according to the Prophets; the covenant according to Jesus; the covenant according to Matthew, the covenant according to Mark; the covenant according to Luke; and the covenant according to John. There is a different covenant according to Paul, and if anyone preaches a different covenant to that of Paul, let them be cursed. The gaul of that bloke; he encountered an angel of light on the road to Damascus; he claims Satan can change into an angel of light; he claims to be the greatest sinner; he claimed the end cannot come until the man of sin is revealed; and all of this with a straight face.


There is more to circumcision than most realise. Circumcision begins the sanctification process; while Jesus's blood is God's blood of the covenant, in a blood covenant, blood is required in four ways, to establish the blood covenant Blood from each party to the covenant is required, when the covenant is broken the blood of the guilty party is required (could be each party). Circumcision is or was Israels blood of the covenant, a prerequisite for entering into the covenant; what do Christians use as their blood of the covenant; a glass of wine and a sun biscuit or a splashing of water.


I don't see Paul preparing anyone for the second coming of Christ. On the other hand the Prophets of old could have prepared Israel for the first coming of Christ, so can these same prophets prepare the world today for the second coming; Isaiah through to Malachi.