The context of a "rapture" verse.

Soon Rev 22:11-12 · Feb 16, 2006

35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age (which age? The one that Jesus ushers in at His coming at the time of the resurrection), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Soon Rev 22:11-12 · Feb 16, 2006

1 Corinthians 15

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

There are no changes after Jesus leaves heaven and comes to resurrect the dead.

Revelation 22:11-12
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

yeshuasavedme · Feb 16, 2006

Soon Rev 22:11-12 said:
...

You are mixing up, wrongly, the resurrected, regenerated Believers who are made priests to stand before the LORD in heaven, with the never dead, never regenerated in body Believers who come through the great tribulation alive and enter the millennial reign still in their own bodies of Adamic heritage, to populate the earth -just as Noah's family repopulated the earth after the flood.
It is those who are resurrected and -or- regenerated, who are made priests in heaven and rule over earth during the thousand years from heaven, who do not marry or give in marraige ever again.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

The Levites will be taken from the Jews to be priests on earth, again, and minister in the millennial reign in and for the earthly temple, in unregenerated bodies, still, for that time, and they shall marry and give in marraige, as Ezekiel describes in Ezekiel chapter 44 for the millennial reign:

Laws Governing Priests
10 "And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity.
11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.
12 Because they ministered to them before their idols and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore I have raised My hand in an oath against them," says the Lord God, "that they shall bear their iniquity.
13 And they shall not come near Me to minister to Me as priest, nor come near any of My holy things, nor into the Most Holy Place; but they shall bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed.
14 Nevertheless I will make them keep charge of the temple, for all its work, and for all that has to be done in it.
15 "But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near Me to minister to Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood," says the Lord God. 16 "They shall enter My sanctuary, and they shall come near My table to minister to Me, and they shall keep My charge.
17 And it shall be, whenever they enter the gates of the inner court, that they shall put on linen garments; no wool shall come upon them while they minister within the gates of the inner court or within the house.
18 They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen trousers on their bodies; they shall not clothe themselves with anything that causes sweat.
19 When they go out to the outer court, to the outer court to the people, they shall take off their garments in which they have ministered, leave them in the holy chambers, and put on other garments; and in their holy garments they shall not sanctify the people.
20 "They shall neither shave their heads, nor let their hair grow long, but they shall keep their hair well trimmed.
21 No priest shall drink wine when he enters the inner court.
22 They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests.
23 "And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
24 In controversy they shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgments. They shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths.
25 "They shall not defile themselves by coming near a dead person. Only for father or mother, for son or daughter, for brother or unmarried sister may they defile themselves.
26 After he is cleansed, they shall count seven days for him.
27 And on the day that he goes to the sanctuary to minister in the sanctuary, he must offer his sin offering in the inner court," says the Lord God.
28 "It shall be, in regard to their inheritance, that I am their inheritance. You shall give them no possession in Israel, for I am their possession.
29 They shall eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering; every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.
30 The best of all firstfruits of any kind, and every sacrifice of any kind from all your sacrifices, shall be the priest's; also you shall give to the priest the first of your ground meal, to cause a blessing to rest on your house.
31 The priests shall not eat anything, bird or beast, that died naturally or was torn by wild beasts.

Affinity · Feb 16, 2006

good4u said:
Oh no, it is of extreme importance. Otherwise, there is no hope.

Of course it is the REAL issue: WHEN is Christ returning?

It is not a matter of debate that he is. Any geninue beleiver knows that if they have trusted Christ.

All this hoopla in eschatology is about when. Jesus did give us indications of when. Most don't understand his teachings on when. That really is the bottom line and the real issue.

You are young and I have been where you are. Keep studying.

I recommend you do the same, and while doing so try and understand the real reason why I was debating what I in the first place.

And no, I'm not debating on whether or not He's coming back.

Now regarding what you call the "hoopla in eschatology", keep in mind that just because that particular aspect of eschatology is the most interesting or important to you, that doesn't mean the field is limited to that aspect, or that other aspects are unimportant. If this were the case, then "eschatology" would mean the study of when Jesus is coming back. But that's not what it means. It's actually the study of end times prophecy. Now granted, that prophecy is eventually concluded with Christ's return, but there are other events that take place before His return that are represented in these prophecies, which are also important to understand, mainly for the purpose, as you have pointed out, of understanding when He's coming back.

However, there are also some who misunderstand what the message of some (or sometimes all) end times prophecies are, for various reasons.

In that case, those issues must be addressed, or debated. Why, you will probably ask, should they be debated if what's really important is Christ's return? Well, here is part of the answer to the recommendation I made in the being of this reply.

The issue I was debating had to do with a theory that seven years before Christ's return, all the believers will be "caught up" or "raptured" from the earth by Christ. This theory (I call it that at the risk of offending those who view it as dogma) has actually only been in cirrculation among Christians for about 150 years (if you want the full history, read up on John Darby and of origin of 'dispensationalism') and if we were in an earlier era, I would call it heresy. Why? Well one of the many reasons is in the op.

But still you say "Why does it matter". Well, it certainly isn't just a matter of being right or wrong, because if that were the case, this whole debate would be nothing more than a battle of ego's, and then your point would be most valid. But there's another important reason why I debate this issue.

Hypothetically, there will be undesirable consequenses for those who believe in the "rapture" if it is, as I believe it to be, heretical.

Just imagine for a moment, if you will, millions of believers expecting (as there are today) to be suddenly wisk up into heaven before a number of terrible things take place. Now what if that never happens, and while all the rest of the things predicted in Revelation and else where begin to unfold, those believers continue to think that they themselves must first be wisk away before, let's say, the antichrist takes power. Here is just one of the possible consequenses. Believers are, in large part, unsuspecting of an antichrist taking power because they are still expectation that God to wisk them away before that happens. That could be the ac's best camoflage, and it will be for those who think that a "rapture" will occure before He takes power.

So to sum up, this issue I'm debating, while I've only explained one aspect of it, for the most part has nothing to do with when Christ will return, or salvation, ect. Never the less, it is an important issue. However, it is easy for some to write it off as unnesesary.

yeshuasavedme · Feb 17, 2006

Affinity said:
...
The issue I was debating had to do with a theory that seven years before Christ's return, all the believers will be "caught up" or "raptured" from the earth by Christ. This theory (I call it that at the risk of offending those who view it as dogma) has actually only been in cirrculation among Christians for about 150 years (if you want the full history, read up on John Darby and of origin of 'dispensationalism') and if we were in an earlier era, I would call it heresy. Why? Well one of the many reasons is in the op.
.

Your statement above that I have isolated from your post shows biblical illiteracy, my friend, for the catching up -"laqach"- of Believers [only those who actually watch and pray, living godly sober lives, so that they may be counted worthy to escape the things coming and to stand before the Son of Man -to walk with Him in white, as those in Sardis would be able to do] is taught abundantly in the Old and the New Testaments.
It is thoroughly laid out in the teaching given in the living oracles commited to the Jews, which oracles teach all things about the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ.
I have never read your Darby, but I have read the Bible and the Holy Spirit teaches us His plan in the oracles, and the prophets lay it out explicitly for us, building upon the revelation given in the oracles, throughout the Word.

It is the Holy Spirit who is teacher, and Paul was given the understanding from the Holy Spirit -because He was a man thouroughly aquainted with the oracles- of the "laqach" =harpazo, of the congregation of the LORD before the seven year 'night' of the darkness begins, which night is put away forever with the dawning of the Day Star, at His return to reign for the Last Day of the earth's Sabbath rest of His Peace before the heavens and the earth are destroyed by fire and regenerated.

You would do well to learn the first principles of the oracles commited to the Jews -as the Instructor of all things the LORD is doing reveals to us, about what He has done and shall do; and where, what, when, and how, as laid out in the Word for us- before you try to debate a subject, as if you are debating it from the Bible, that you actually have no biblical knowledge of.

Hbr 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

You cannot debate a subject that you have no biblical instruction on, but only know the writings of some men who refute all truth; and therefore you disqualify yourself from the debate, not being thouroughly prepared with understanding to know what you are speaking of from the Book of the LORD -truly, you are a babe who needs to begin with milk.

Soon Rev 22:11-12 · Feb 17, 2006

yeshuasavedme said:
You are mixing up, wrongly...

No, you are.

There are not two ages running simultaneously.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end,

There is no rapture that takes place years before the 2nd coming. They are the same event. It is in the Greek, even.

Will Christ Return in Two Phases?

The dispensationalists teach that the two separate stages of Christ's coming are indicated "in the Greek." They argue that there will first be the rapture (parousia), a secret coming; then seven years later will be the revelation (apokalupsis), His coming in power and glory. But, actually, instead of teaching two separate events, the Greek terms are used interchangeably in the Bible. They give no indication of a seven-year interval.

For example, Paul uses the word "parousia" in the famous rapture chapter of 1 Thessalonians 4 in speaking of the coming of our Lord and our gathering together unto Him. He then goes right on to show that this "parousia" will destroy the man of sin. Speaking of the Antichrist, Paul says, "whom the Lord shall ... destroy with the brightness of his coming [parousia]." 2 Thessalonians 2:8. These texts clearly describe the coming (parousia) of Christ as taking place after the reign of the man of sin, not as an escape rapture before the reign of the Antichrist begins.

The other Greek word "apokalupsis" (revelation) is used in a way that indicates it is not a separate coming from the time the believers are gathered up. Peter said to "be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation [apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1:13. Why would Christians be exhorted to keep hoping to the very end of the world for the grace brought through the revelation of Christ if their real hope was a secret rapture seven years before the revelation?

Now look at some verses which prove beyond a doubt that the two words "parousia" and "apokalupsis" refer to the same event. In Matthew 24:37 we read, "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming [parousia] of the Son of man be." Luke's account of the same passage says, "As it was in the days of Noe ... Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed [apokalupsis]." Luke 17:26, 30. This shows that the coming (parousia) of Christ and the revelation (apokalupsis) of Christ are the same event. There is absolutely no basis for placing seven years in between.

Many dispensationalist teachers actually claim that the rapture is not really the "coming" of Jesus at all. They say His coming is when Christ returns in power seven years after the rapture. But what a contradictory, confusing explanation that is! The fact is that there are many Scriptures which admonish Christians to wait and watch for the coming of the Lord. For example, James 5:7 says, "Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord." But why should Christians need to be patient unto the coming of the Lord if there is to be a secret rapture to take them to heaven seven years before His coming?

Strange as it may seem, this whole counterfeit secret rapture is built upon a constant repetition of words and ideas that are not found in the Bible at all. But they have been repeated so often that millions have assumed that they must be soundly biblical. Let's take a look at some of the texts which have been used to support the doctrine of a two-phase coming of Christ. And please notice that none of the verses actually say what some try to read into them. In fact, it is only after a person has already assumed that Christ will return in two separate comings that these verses could even suggest the idea.

Revelation 3:10 is often quoted to try to prove that the righteous will be taken out of the world before the tribulation. "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." It is immediately obvious that this text does not speak of the righteous leaving this world at all. Jesus completely clarified the meaning by something He said in John 17:6, 15 which sounds very similar. "They have kept thy word ... I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil." Don't miss the significance of the term "kept the word" in both these texts. Both statements are talking about the same group of people-the faithful ones.

Now if those who "kept the word" can be "kept from the evil" of the world without being taken out of the world, why should we suppose that a special coming and secret rapture is required for those who "kept the word" to be "kept from the hour of temptation"? Whatever else may be taught in Revelation 3:10, it is evident that no extra coming of Christ is indicated.

True biblical doctrine must be based upon clear statements of what the entire Bible teaches on a subject and not upon verses which offer only veiled inferences. Luke 21:36 is an example of that very thing. Jesus said to His disciples, "Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass." How? By a secret rapture to take them to heaven seven years before the end of the world? Definitely not, for in the prayer of Jesus we read, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil." When He told them to "pray ... to escape," He must have meant the same as when He prayed, "I pray not ... take them out of the world but ... keep them." This rules out a secret rapture entirely. The text that is used to prove the rapture is seen actually to forbid the saints being taken out of this world during the time of trouble.

good4u · Feb 17, 2006

Affinity said:
Hypothetically, there will be undesirable consequenses for those who believe in the "rapture" if it is, as I believe it to be, heretical.

You error. The rapture itself is not hertical, in fact, Apostle Paul speaks of it in 2 Thess.

Affinity said:
Just imagine for a moment, if you will, millions of believers expecting (as there are today) to be suddenly wisk up into heaven before a number of terrible things take place. Now what if that never happens, and while all the rest of the things predicted in Revelation and else where begin to unfold, those believers continue to think that they themselves must first be wisk away before, let's say, the antichrist takes power. Here is just one of the possible consequenses. Believers are, in large part, unsuspecting of an antichrist taking power because they are still expectation that God to wisk them away before that happens. That could be the ac's best camoflage, and it will be for those who think that a "rapture" will occure before He takes power.

Yes. There are many in this section who believe this heretical teaching. I am not one of them. So after all this, it still comes to a matter of "when?" That really is the bottom line here.

Affinity · Feb 18, 2006

good4u said:
You error. The rapture itself is not hertical, in fact, Apostle Paul speaks of it in 2 Thess.

Yes. There are many in this section who believe this heretical teaching. I am not one of them. So after all this, it still comes to a matter of "when?" That really is the bottom line here.

No, you error by taking my reference to the "rapture" out of the context of my post. It is quite clear that I'm refering to the "pre tribulation rapture" if you read the entire post.

Affinity · Feb 18, 2006

yeshuasavedme said:
Your statement above that I have isolated from your post shows biblical illiteracy, my friend, for the catching up -"laqach"- of Believers [only those who actually watch and pray, living godly sober lives, so that they may be counted worthy to escape the things coming and to stand before the Son of Man -to walk with Him in white, as those in Sardis would be able to do] is taught abundantly in the Old and the New Testaments.
It is thoroughly laid out in the teaching given in the living oracles commited to the Jews, which oracles teach all things about the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ.
I have never read your Darby, but I have read the Bible and the Holy Spirit teaches us His plan in the oracles, and the prophets lay it out explicitly for us, building upon the revelation given in the oracles, throughout the Word.

It is the Holy Spirit who is teacher, and Paul was given the understanding from the Holy Spirit -because He was a man thouroughly aquainted with the oracles- of the "laqach" =harpazo, of the congregation of the LORD before the seven year 'night' of the darkness begins, which night is put away forever with the dawning of the Day Star, at His return to reign for the Last Day of the earth's Sabbath rest of His Peace before the heavens and the earth are destroyed by fire and regenerated.

You would do well to learn the first principles of the oracles commited to the Jews -as the Instructor of all things the LORD is doing reveals to us, about what He has done and shall do; and where, what, when, and how, as laid out in the Word for us- before you try to debate a subject, as if you are debating it from the Bible, that you actually have no biblical knowledge of.

Hbr 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

You cannot debate a subject that you have no biblical instruction on, but only know the writings of some men who refute all truth; and therefore you disqualify yourself from the debate, not being thouroughly prepared with understanding to know what you are speaking of from the Book of the LORD -truly, you are a babe who needs to begin with milk.

I recommend you do some more research on Darby. If, as you claim, you have no knowledge of the teachings of dispensationalism and it's founder, you may be quite surprised to find out you both support the same "theories", you simply take a different angle on it by incorporating the hebrew word that is used in the OT to support what you claim.

The truth is, though, your's and Darby's theories of 1 Thess. 4:17 describing a "pre trib rapture" were unheard of in the church until about 150 years ago. And though you may have thought and hoped your theory was an orgininal one, it actually isn't, Darby taught these things before you were born.

When I have some more time, I'll address some of the other issues you've raised to support your argument.

But quite frankly, I've heard all these theories of your's before from others, you just have a nack for delivering them in a rather insulting, even belittling tone, which actually reveals a lot about you at the same time. Now I use to let those sort of comments get to me, but then I realised that that was the purpose of the ones who made them, to antagonize and not to promote understanding through debate.

yeshuasavedme · Feb 18, 2006

Affinity said:
I recommend you do some more research on Darby. If, as you claim, you have no knowledge of the teachings of dispensationalism and it's founder, you may be quite surprised to find out you both support the same "theories", you simply take a different angle on it by incorporating the hebrew word that is used in the OT to support what you claim.

The truth is, though, your's and Darby's theories of 1 Thess. 4:17 describing a "pre trib rapture" were unheard of in the church until about 150 years ago. And though you may have thought and hoped your theory was an orgininal one, it actually isn't, Darby taught these things before you were born.

When I have some more time, I'll address some of the other issues you've raised to support your argument.

But quite frankly, I've heard all these theories of your's before from others, you just have a nack for delivering them in a rather insulting, even belittling tone, which actually reveals a lot about you at the same time. Now I use to let those sort of comments get to me, but then I realised that that was the purpose of the ones who made them, to antagonize and not to promote understanding through debate.

My tone is not meant to be belittling, but a comment on your own comments that it is Darby you have taken as the word on the matter -and apparently whom you wish to debate?
Rather than debating a dead man, why not use Scripture to refute my Scripture in the specifics?
You have not heard my refutations of your claims from so many others, as the issues of the oracles are hardly touched upon by the moderns who are basing their arguments from men who are not the foundation of the Church.
The Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief foundation stone.

Does it not strike you as something worthy of looking into, that Jesus Christ is the last prophet and yet that He is the chief Foundation Stone; and that it was Moses who spoke of Him -of His Person and His work- and who received the pattern of the things in the heavnlies to copy as shadows and types in the law, and who was commanded to make all thngs according to the pattern shown him?
Even David received the revelation for the pattern of the temple that Solomon used to build the temple, as a copy, a type, of heavenly truths, as the oracles of the Salvation in the New Creation Man's blood; so how is it that you want to take a truth of the oracles and debate it's irrelevance and non-existance and use the claims of mere men to do so?

You see, you have confessed your lack of understanding in the oracles when you claimed the rapture is a theory taught only in modern times: and that is not so.
It is the teaching in the oracles of the making of priests in bodies of regeneration those who are cleansed by the blood of sprinkling on the true Mercy Seat -the human body of Christ- and adopted in Spirit, who are taken into the heavenly temple and the doors shut for the seven days of their consecration, at the 'rapture' -while on earth, the great tribulation comes upon all those who dwell on it at that same seven 'days', which is called 'one week'.

Ignorance of the oracles is your downfall -and the downfall of all who argue against the revelation of the making sons of God and priests to Him, in the 'Firstborn', those who are cleansed in being regenerated in Spirit and, finally, in body.

I would advise you to learn the first principles in the oracles as commited to the Jews -and debate God from there.
He has told us all things that He will do and has told them through His prophets, according to His word, and the Prophet Moses has laid it all out in the oracles, as commited to him, and the prophets laid on that foundation, itself, of the work of redemption in the New Creation Man, the True Mercy Seat of YHWH represented in the heavenlies and in the earthly temple as the solid gold covering to the Ark of the Covenant which received the blood of sprinkling for our cleansing -go learn and come tell me how it is not so that God has not done this marvelous thing of showing in the oracles all things that He was to do, has now done, and shall do!

I will probably never read Darby, as I find too much in the Word of God to keep me fascinated -for I'm still "beholding wondrous things out of His law", as I daily take up the Word and read; and I expect I'll have enough to keep me busy for my entire life -what's left of it- and on into eternity, from that Word. I'll take a good sermon from an anointed man of God any day, but reading books of dead mena is no longer an interest of mine, since I finished with the so called early Church Fathers [which hubby bought me the entire set of the writings of, once], and found them to not be fathers of the Church of the LORD, as they are not the 'foundation' of the Church He is building of stones one at a time [adopted in Him by His Spirit of adoption], and those men came long after the foundation was laid and are not true to that foundatin at all.

Getting back to the Word has been delightful for me, and finding the treasures in the pages there; and when a man of God also teaches from the Word under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I rejoice in the man's preaching: but for the most part, there are few who love the Word and make it their daily delight -but there are some, and probably enough, all over rthe world, to get the job dione that the Holy Spirit is doing through them, to call men to Jesus Christ before it is too late for them, in every generation until the end of the generation sof Adam [as the sign of circumcision teaches on, (the cutting off of all seed -all generations- of Adam), which is going to be in the eighth day of creation, on that First day of the New heavens and New earth after the thousand yeear Sabbath Rest of Peace is completed for this present creation].

Now, I must leave you guys to fight about what men say, since that's your delight, and can't take more time for awhile -except the post after this that I responded to already, as we have a flurry of wedding preparations over the next few months; and preparing for the youngest daughter's departure and setting up of her own household will not give me time to post as I used to do.

yeshuasavedme · Feb 18, 2006

Soon Rev 22:11-12 said:
There is no more harvesting from the earth after Jesus comes again in the rapture/resurrection.

Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Matthew 13:39
The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.

Revelation 14:14-16

14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

I have to say the same to you as to affinity -go learn the first principles commited to the Jews in the oracles. As long as you remain ignorant of the teaching in the oracles -esp as laid out in the Feasts of YHWH, you are not qualified to be a 'biblical' debater.
Pentecost will not be celebrated in the millennial reign, for at the first harvest (Pentecost), which is the gathering at the time of the rapture, the early harvest will be gathered in -and no more will that Feast be celebrated in the earth after the harvest is completed.

The latter harvest will be celebrated as a type and shadow, still, during the Feast of Tabernacles for the entire thousand years, and the 144,000 redeemed of the tribes of Israel, redeemed out of the great tribulation, are 'the firstfruits of Israel', of that last harvest that will come at the end of the thousand years after Israel is restored, as promised, and is the capital nation on earth during that time.
But why not just go learn the first principles in the oracles for yourself?

Anthem · Feb 19, 2006

nephilimiyr said:
I believe Paul is talking about one event in which several things are happening. In other words, during jesus Christ second coming several things are going to take place. first he is going to appear in the air, then the dead will rise and meet him up there, then we who are alive on earth will meet Him up there. It is a rapture but I don't believe there is going to be any 7 year period seperating when we are gathered up in the air to meet Jesus and when he comes for the second time on earth.

I think the problem people have with this seperation is that you always hear of the SECOND coming of Christ...what we often think of as the Second coming, will actually be the third.

the SECOND coming by most prophecy scholars is the rapture, which most students and teachers of prophecy agree is pre-tribulation (though not necessarily immediately )...

Affinity · Feb 19, 2006

yeshuasavedme said:
Sorry, but the context is His coming in the air to get the watching and praying Believers whom He counts worthy to stand before Him [as priests, in the temple in heaven, in their regenerated bodies] -not to the earth to reign, and that is easy for anyone to check out -why not try it? -checking out the context by looking at all Paul's teaching, that is; on the event of the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the rapture of the Church to meet the LORD 'in the air', at His coming, 'in the air' to get us -to gather us all to Him, who are His, before the pouring out of His wrath on the inhabitants of the earth?and don''t wiggle out of the context by claiming the reference is to come to the earth to reign, for Paul is very clear about the order of events, which He teaches on, in many places -so why not just go with what Paul's entire teaching is, and lay that out in order, side by side, with all the passages in the Old Testament from where Paul received the understanding from the Holy Spirit of the mystery of the 'rapture -which is the 'laqach' in the Old Testament- of the congregation [the Church] of the LORD, at the time of the resurrection of the dead in Christ; to regenerate both the bodies of resurrection of those Believers -whom He brings with Him, to get them- and the bodies of the Living Believers [who are watching and praying, living godly sober lives , so that they may be counted worthy to stand before the son of Man]?

Now the time has come to take a critical look at your argument.

You argue that 1 Thess. 4:17 is not a description of the second coming of Christ because the passage describes Christ coming in the air. This in and of itself is the only scriptural evidence that you have provided to support your argument.

Now, let me make it clear that, first and foremost, all that other stuff that you add on after this scriptural reference does not count. Those are to be counted as presuppositions, simply because the scriptures don't say those things in regards to the passage we are addressing.

For example, 1 Thess. 4:17 does not say, or even imply, that after Christ gathers the believers to Himself, that He then does a 180 degree turn around and heads back up to heaven for another seven years.

Let's look at that passage real quick and just for cautions sake double check and see what exactly the passage does say, beginning in verse 16:

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

Well there you have it. Absolutely no mention of the Lord then going back up to heaven.

So that leaves your argument with only this: that the description here is that He comes in the air.

Now I'm going to desimate your argument completely by showing you two passage that describe Christ's second coming as beginning in the air, and then the rest of those reading in can judge for themselves who is qualified to debate the Bible.

Note first that the 1 Thess. passage describes Christ as "descending" to collect the believers.

Enter Acts 1:9-11. The context is Christ's final address to the apostles before He is taken up to heaven. This passage reads as follows:

"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud recieved Him out of their sight.
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel.
who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

And so, just as Christ assended into heaven, so He will descend from heaven at His second coming. This is exactly what is described in 1 Thess., Christ was "descending".

Now, of course all this is quite obvious, and even though it almost seems silly to have to point out things like this that I would have hoped would be obvious, never the less it is mostly intended for those who have been indocrinated with false hopes.

The second passage is one of Christ's own descriptions of His second coming. Matthew 24:30 reads as follows:

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
"And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So there we have it: Christ second coming will definintly be from the air.

Now your argument has no leg to stand on, and all you have left are presuppositions.

Affinity · Feb 19, 2006

Anthem said:
I think the problem people have with this seperation is that you always hear of the SECOND coming of Christ...what we often think of as the Second coming, will actually be the third.

the SECOND coming by most prophecy scholars is the rapture, which most students and teachers of prophecy agree is pre-tribulation (though not necessarily immediately )...

That's not true. What I think you mean is most dispensational prophecy scholars, as well as most dispensational students and teachers of prophecy. You apperently have only been exposed to dispensationalist views, which is often the case since these views are accepted by about sixty percent of evangelical christians in the USA. Here in the states, these views are quite popular.

However, expanding ones awareness of differing views, we find that 40% of those in the US don't agree with dispensationalist views, and outside of the US, the reaction is the same. That's hardly "most".

Do some research on "dispensationalism". This appears to be the view you hold to, though it also appears your not aware of it.

Anthem · Feb 19, 2006

Affinity said:
That's not true. What I think you mean is most dispensational prophecy scholars, as well as most dispensational students and teachers of prophecy. You apperently have only been exposed to dispensationalist views, which is often the case since these views are accepted by about sixty percent of evangelical christians in the USA. Here in the states, these views are quite popular.

However, expanding ones awareness of differing views, we find that 40% of those in the US don't agree with dispensationalist views, and outside of the US, the reaction is the same. That's hardly "most".

Do some research on "dispensationalism". This appears to be the view you hold to, though it also appears your not aware of it.

If you could somehow discern to me how 60% and MOST are not congruent?

thanks!

Affinity · Feb 19, 2006

Anthem said:
If you could somehow discern to me how 60% and MOST are not congruent?

thanks!

Not when one includes the rest of the world! Remember, where talking about just the US, though I think you would have caught this had your reply not been so hastily made.

And if I'm not mistaken, the words majority and most are not nessesarily synonyms. Majority is over 50%. I may be mistaken, but don't think it's correct to count 60% as most. Most seems to connote something like 80-95%, but that's neither here nor there since one must, as I just pointed out, factor in the rest of the world.

Anthem · Feb 19, 2006

Affinity said:
Not when one includes the rest of the world! Remember, where talking about just the US, though I think you would have caught this had your reply not been so hastily made.

And if I'm not mistaken, the words majority and most are not nessesarily synonyms. Majority is over 50%. I may be mistaken, but don't think it's correct to count 60% as most. Most seems to connote something like 80-95%, but that's neither here nor there since one must, as I just pointed out, factor in the rest of the world.

most and majority are synonyms.

but you're right, that's neither here nor there.

I think you'll find in America, dispensational views encompass a majority of teachers and students of prophecy,

outside of the US its a pretty fair split.

which would edge dispensational views, even if only by a tenth of a percent, into the category of MOST..

anyway, we're just playing semantics.

so whatever.

lastworditus.

Affinity · Feb 19, 2006

Anthem said:
most and majority are synonyms.

but you're right, that's neither here nor there.

I think you'll find in America, dispensational views encompass a majority of teachers and students of prophecy,

outside of the US its a pretty fair split.

which would edge dispensational views, even if only by a tenth of a percent, into the category of MOST..

anyway, we're just playing semantics.

so whatever.

lastworditus.

Well, I'll agree with you on your assesment of here in the US, and as the original post in this thread demostrates, it truly is a shame. Paul warned that a time like this would come in 2 Tim. 4:3,4.

Dispensationals have done such a fine job of sensationalizing there views of scripture that I like to call them "Sensationals". And really, it's pretty obivious why they've been so successful at doing this.

I mean, if a group comes along and begins interpreting what has been thought of for 1600+ years as second coming passage, and says there describing an entirely different event that just happens to "rapture" all the believers away before the "tribulation" starts happening, I mean, come on, read between the lines here. :doh:

Anthem · Feb 19, 2006

Affinity said:
I mean, if a group comes along and begins interpreting what has been thought of for 1600+ years as second coming passage, and says there describing an entirely different event that just happens to "rapture" all the believers away before the "tribulation" starts happening, I mean, come on, read between the lines here.

this is in no way a complete thought, please read between the lines for me.

I mean to say we're not smarter or better at getting good translations these days or studying scripture is assanine (sp?)

so what's to say that something such as the second coming couldn't defy the convention of the past?

the third coming is still the second coming to earth.

i mean, in essence it doesn't matter terribly. when we find out who's right, either I'll be telling you i told you so in heaven, or you'll be telling me you told me so while we listen to Jesus preach.

so it's win-win.

Affinity · Feb 19, 2006

Anthem said:
this is in no way a complete thought, please read between the lines for me.

I mean to say we're not smarter or better at getting good translations these days or studying scripture is assanine (sp?)

so what's to say that something such as the second coming couldn't defy the convention of the past?

the third coming is still the second coming to earth.

i mean, in essence it doesn't matter terribly. when we find out who's right, either I'll be telling you i told you so in heaven, or you'll be telling me you told me so while we listen to Jesus preach.

so it's win-win.

So according to your logic, interpretations of scripture have actually improved over the years, as if to say the early christians were for some reason slower than us today. I disagree.

But instead of just saying there's a "third coming", I challenge you to deeply consider the scriptural foundation for such an idea, for without that, all you have is baseless supposition.

Now consider this:

We can at least agree that in all these so called "pre-trib rapture" passages, a resurrection of dead believers occurs. Now, here comes the knock out punch:

In the entire NT, the two words 'first resurrection' (greek 'protos anastasis'), are only used twice, first in Rev. 20:5, and then in the very next verse, 20:6. And guess when this one and only 'first resurrection' takes place: After the second coming.

Now I ask you this. If this 'first resurrection' was indeed not the first resurrection, then why would John have called it the 'first resurrection'.

Or are you going to go so far as to say that John himself was ignorant.

The context of a "rapture" verse.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

<font color="darkblue"><font size="3"><b><i><font

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Similar threads