Is the Rapture biblical?

sovereigngrace said:

You obviously have to avoid these questions because Daniel 9 knows nothing of your Pretrib rapture and your imaginary 3rd coming.

Click to expand...

OF COURSE NOT! Daniel 9 is for DANIEL'S people. When are you going to get this straight? No true student of the bible would look for the Gentile church of today in Daniel 9. Posttribbers might. I don't know for sure because I am not one.

sovereigngrace said:

The seventy years in Babylon were not literal? Really? What were they: symbolic or imaginary?

Click to expand...

Of course they were literal. Where are you coming up with this nonsense? I was talking about 70 AD, not the 70 years of captivity.

sovereigngrace said:

Is there a gap between the 7th and the 8th week?

If you were directed to go to the next state and told and told it was exactly a 490-mile journey (right down to the very yard). You were told that in-between the starting point and your destination you would pass two important landmarks, the first after 49 miles, which was accurate to the very yard. The next was a further 434 miles ahead (bringing your journey to 483 miles in total), which also occurred right down to the very yard. The journey's end would be a final 7 miles down the road from your second landmark, making your total journey 490 miles. Exactly half way between 483 miles and 490 (486 ½ miles) you would witness a monumental landmark that would surpass anything you have ever seen. How would you then feel if you were told when you hit the second landmark that your final location was still a possible 2,000+ miles down the road with NO exact finishing point? Such an idea would be totally unthinkable in the natural, but unprecedented in God's economy. God always fulfils His promises.

Click to expand...

None of this works. Just one more red herring.

It is hoped that the following will address objections made to arguments presented in the Real Rapture,study.

Just to emphasize:

The day of Christ,the day of the Lord Jesus Christ,the day of the Lord Jesus,the day of the Lord are all referring to the same event ie. the coming of the Lord.It is one of the fallacies of the pre-trib. doctrine to say these are different.One explanation is to say they begin at the same time but the day of the Lord is the tribulation. This is in no way supported by the scriptures.The scriptures show this is the time at which Christians should expect to see the Lord returning for them.

Christians are to be confirmed to the end so that they are blameless in "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ".(I Corinthians 1:8.)

The time when we will be saved or delivered is called "the day of the Lord Jesus".(I Corinthians 5:5.)

The Lord will preserve and keep us until "the day of Jesus Christ".(Phliippians 1:6.)

We are to be sincere and without offence till "the day of Christ".(Philippians 1:10.)

Paul will know and rejoice that he had not run nor laboured in vain in "the day of Christ".(Philippians 2:16.)

Paul says the event which comes as a thief in the night and which should not overtake us,not because of a rapture but because we are prepared,is called "the day of the Lord".(I Thessalonians 5:1-9.)

Hence Paul was not telling the Thessalonians about a day of vengeance,but was assuring them that the time of the Lord's coming was not yet.He identifies two things which must happen before the coming occurs,the falling away(apostasia)and the man of sin will be revealed.Before the coming of the Lord will be the apostasia and the man of sin be revealed.

falling away - (646 Strongs)apostasia;defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”):

Thayer Definition:
1) a falling away, defection, apostasy


The apostasia is clearly linked to the coming man of sin.The mystery of iniquity or mystery of lawlessness had begun in Paul's time which is the turning away from God's truth ie.apostasia and the end result will be that which Paul spoke of in II Thessalonians 2:3,after which the man of sin is revealed.The mystery of iniquity and its development will precede the revealing of the man of sin,(II Thess.2:7,8),,just as the apostasia comes first and then the man of sin is revealed.(II Thess.2:3)

The removal of the hinderer is linked to the mystery of iniquity and the revealing of the man of sin.For Paul to say:

"...the mystery of iniquity doth already work:"(II Thess.2:7) ;this must be a reference to something mentioned at its completion or maturity,which he is now saying has started.
Apostasia being interpreted as apostasy would fit this context completely ie. the apostasy would come first then the man of sin,but it had already started and when completed and the hinderer removed, then will the man of sin be revealed.It is only after this that the Lord will come for His people.This is the progression of thought in the passage.Nothing about a spatial departure.(II Thess.2:3-8.)

Why would the Thessalonians become "shaken in mind" or "be troubled" that the day of Christ is "at hand"?

shaken - (4531,Strong's) saleuo;to waver,ie,agitate,rock,topple or destroy;fig.to disturb,incite:

troubled - (2360,Strong's) throeo;to clamour,ie,(by impl.)to frighten:

at hand - (1764,Strong's) enistemi;to place on hand,ie.(reflex.)impend,(part.)be instant:

N.B. impend - hang (over);(of event or danger)be imminent.

Enistemi - lit.,to stand in,or set in(en,in,histemi,to stand), hence to be present or to be imminent,is rendered "shall come" in 2 tim.3:1;it here expresses permanence, 'shall settle in (upon you).' [Vine's Expository Dictionary]

Paul had assured them they were not appointed to experience wrath but to obtain salvation.(I Thess.5:9.)He also told them to expect and be patient in tribulation.(I Thess.3:2-4;II Thess.1:4,5;see also Acts 14:22)


Why then were they agitated or frightened?

Were they worried about being worthy to be with the Lord at his coming?(II Thess.1:11)

Could they have been just excited and diverted from Paul's teaching about the coming of the Lord?

Could they be thinking His coming was actually at the very door, when it was not?

As was shown above,"at hand" does not only mean,"is present" as some say but also carries the meaning of imminency.

Based on the words of Paul in the passage ,he did not seek to assure the Thessalonians that the Lord has not come and they had not missed the event.Instead he sought to assure them of events which would occur before the Lord comes.This implies they thought the coming was very near,almost at the door,not that it had passed or was in effect.Hence they were shaken from what he had taught them previously and were unnecessarily excited about an event which was to occur only after the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin.

"Remember ye not,that,when I was yet with you,I told you these things?"(II Thess.2:5)

He later says,rather than be shaken and agitated,they should:

"...stand fast,and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word,or our epistle."(II Thess.2:15)

Paul is correcting the very error which today is the popular teaching about the coming of the Lord ie. the Lord may come at any time.He clearly refutes this teaching but many today are shaken and troubled and have led many astray with this false teaching.It is only because of the failure to heed the words of Paul why many could have believed in the predictions,about the Lord's coming,by William Miller and others.Others today do not set dates but cause many to be continuously agitated as they expound the false teaching.

John confirms we will see antichrist(the man of sin) before the Lord's coming, as he says we have been warned that antichrist will come.Why warn if Christians would not see the advent of antichrist?(I John 2:18-24)

Apostasia,therefore, in this context cannot refer to the rapture but to apostasy from God's truth which will precede the revealing of the man of sin.It is only after this ,that Christians can say the Lord's coming is imminent.

There is no dispute that apostasia may be translated as a departure.However for anyone to ignore the only other use of the word in the Greek scriptures{Acts 21:21) and attempt to say, since other related words refer to a spatial removal,then we should adopt this meaning only,is strange to say the least.As I have shown above,the context of the passage(II Thess.2:3-12) denies the interpretation of apostasia as a spatial removal.The passage is about apostasy and the fruits it produces.It does not refer to a departure.

Also:

It should be clear the perilous times had not yet come when Paul wrote.[II Timothy 3:1-17]In vs13, of the passage he speaks of a progession occuring and in II Timothy 4:3,4,speaks of an event to come.Paul also said to others that the worst would happen after his departure.[Acts 20:29.]

This confirms that enistemi does carry the meaning of imminency in II Timothy 3:1, and the context of II Thess.2 also, would see this meaning as being more appropriate.The Thessalonians thought the Lord's coming was very near almost at the door ie.,was "hanging over" them.

If Paul meant the day of the Lord was present ie. in effect, why no assurance from him that they had not missed the coming of the Lord(rapture) or is it that the rapture does not precede the day of the Lord?

The things being discussed in the passage (II Thess.2.) determine how we should see apostasia and enistemi and the context favours apostasia being interpreted as apostasy and enistemi as imminent.

safswan.

To properly understand the movements of the saints at time of the Lord's coming,a point we need to consider is;where are the dead as the Lord descends from heaven?

Scripture states clearly that when we die our spirits go back to God who gave it,while the body perishes.The apostle Paul states that at death he would be in the presence of the Lord.

Ecclesiastes 12:
7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

II Corinthians 5:
6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight
8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

With this in mind the statement made by Paul, that God will bring the dead with Jesus is very enlightening.It means the dead will be coming from the heavens with the Lord and not from the Earth as some believe.

I Thessalonians 4:
"14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."

What is it that will be brought,is it the bodies or the spirits which were with God?Let's see as Paul gives the order of events concerning the Lord's return.

I Thessalonians 4:
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


When it says the dead rise first it speaks of them receiving their new bodies.[See I Corinthians 15:52]This does not happen first in the order of things but first before the saints who are alive are changed.This happens as their spirits were being brought with the Lord and hence they are with the Lord in the spirit and in their new bodies before the saints who remained alive.

Hence the dead saints are not gathered from the Earth but from the Heavens and it is the saints who are alive who are gathered from the Earth.

Hence for one to say:

"But at the same time sends out angels to GATHER THE ELECT...but who are these elect? Where are they gathered FROM? They are gathered from BOTH heaven and earth. The rapture ONLY gathers from earth. This cannot be the rapture. Angels gather here, but no angels gather at the rapture. So WHO is being gathered here?"

Shows a lack of understanding of the event described in I Thessalonians 4:16-18.Also it it clear that Angels are involved in this event.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel...."[I Thessalonians 4:16]

safswan.

sovereigngrace said:

Until you take your Premil glasses off, you will never see what the inspired text is actually saying. It prevents you seeing the 7 recaps in Revelation. It causes you to advance beliefs that you are unable to find in the Bible. I prefer what the sacred text says! I refer you back to my last post that totally refutes/forbids your Pretrib belief.

Click to expand...

One thing is certain: with all glasses off, I will certainly NOT find posttrib anywhere.
By the way, I know what the texts are saying. They are screaming PRETRIB.

jgr said:

Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation:

3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition

Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.

Departing away as a synonym of dissension thus means departing away from the faith, i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.

Wycliffe identified the man of sin as the apostate papal antichrist, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He did not believe in a pretrib rapture of which he had never heard, and which had never occurred.

From Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Calvin also identified the man of sin as the papacy, and did not believe in a pretrib rapture of which he had never heard, and which had never occurred..
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was also of like persuasion.

There is no Reformer who considered the word to mean anything other than departure from the faith.

A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.

Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."

Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.

Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.

Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?

2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy

The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3


Of the several dozen contemporary English Bible versions in existence, not a single version translates "apostasia" as "rapture", but rather as apostasy, falling away, or the equivalent.

The early church believed that the imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", but which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its eventual apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit or the Church was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly name either one. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom, an apologist of the later early post-apostolic era, reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

Click to expand...

What really matters is what Paul intended. If you insist that the intended meaning is an apostasy or a falling away from truth, Then "falling away" is what is "taken out of the way" and allows the man of sin to be revealed. (verse 3b, the man of is IS revealed, so the one restraining has been taken out of the in the first half of the verse.)

Can evil restrain evil? That even sounds silly. It makes MUCH more sense that the Holy Spirit working through the church restrains evil.

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities. You said a mouthful here! I have always though that is why He did not want to come right out and make it plain that the church would be supernaturally taken out.

Of the several dozen contemporary English Bible versions in existence, not a single version translates "apostasia" as "rapture", but rather as apostasy, falling away, or the equivalent.
It is plain they don't understand Paul's intent here or that they are making a falling away as something being taken out of the way. Neither did they consider the theme of the passage.

iamlamad said:

What really matters is what Paul intended. If you insist that the intended meaning is an apostasy or a falling away from truth, Then "falling away" is what is "taken out of the way" and allows the man of sin to be revealed. (verse 3b, the man of is IS revealed, so the one restraining has been taken out of the in the first half of the verse.)

Can evil restrain evil? That even sounds silly. It makes MUCH more sense that the Holy Spirit working through the church restrains evil.

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities. You said a mouthful here! I have always though that is why He did not want to come right out and make it plain that the church would be supernaturally taken out.

Of the several dozen contemporary English Bible versions in existence, not a single version translates "apostasia" as "rapture", but rather as apostasy, falling away, or the equivalent.
It is plain they don't understand Paul's intent here or that they are making a falling away as something being taken out of the way. Neither did they consider the theme of the passage.

Click to expand...

Awaiting one scintilla of credible rebuttal to over seventeen centuries of unanimous historical true Church understanding, scholarship, and witness; as well as the unanimity of every one of some fifty English Bible versions.

Still waiting.

iamlamad said:

OF COURSE NOT! Daniel 9 is for DANIEL'S people. When are you going to get this straight? No true student of the bible would look for the Gentile church of today in Daniel 9. Posttribbers might. I don't know for sure because I am not one.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the rapture then or a 3rd coming. You rip it from its context and propel it into the unknown, when it belongs to the time of Christ.

iamlamad said:

One thing is certain: with all glasses off, I will certainly NOT find posttrib anywhere.
By the way, I know what the texts are saying. They are screaming PRETRIB.

Click to expand...

That is all you have - personal opinion. No Scripture you have presented teaches Pretrib. It is extra-biblical!

iamlamad said:

None of this works. Just one more red herring.

Click to expand...

Stop the avoidance!

Is there a gap between the 7th and the 8th week?

iamlamad said:

Of course they were literal. Where are you coming up with this nonsense? I was talking about 70 AD, not the 70 years of captivity.

Click to expand...

So why then, in the same chapter, would we decapitate the 70 weeks and propel it into the unknown?

Daniel 9:2 says: “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.”

These seventy years linear, congruent and sequential!

Daniel 9:21-24: “while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

Every sensible theologian of all end-times views see these initial seventy years in Daniel 9 congruent and sequential, why would see the "seventy weeks" any different?

iamlamad said:

OF COURSE NOT! Daniel 9 is for DANIEL'S people. When are you going to get this straight? No true student of the bible would look for the Gentile church of today in Daniel 9. Posttribbers might. I don't know for sure because I am not one.

Click to expand...

Stop avoiding!

What future events do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?
(2) "make an end of sins"?
(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

And exactly in what way will this be accomplished? Please answer this last question individually for points 1-6.

sovereigngrace said:

Every sensible theologian of all end-times views see these initial seventy years in Daniel 9 congruent and sequential, why would see the "seventy weeks" any different?

Click to expand...

Every sensible person can see there HAS been a gap, of nearly 2000 years from the Crucifixion of Jesus at the end of the 69th period.
There is no identifiable 7 year period immediately after that event. We still await the fulfilment of the six things to happen as per Daniel 9:24.

iamlamad said:

OF COURSE NOT! Daniel 9 is for DANIEL'S people. When are you going to get this straight? No true student of the bible would look for the Gentile church of today in Daniel 9. Posttribbers might. I don't know for sure because I am not one.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to this "Gentile church of today"?

"Data from the Pew Research Center that as of 2013, about 1.6 million adult Americans of Jewish background identify themselves as Christians, most are Protestant."

And that's just Americans.

friend of said:

What Is the Rapture and Is it Biblical?

Click to expand...

The letters should not have been saved.

keras said:

Every sensible person can see there HAS been a gap, of nearly 2000 years from the Crucifixion of Jesus at the end of the 69th period.
There is no identifiable 7 year period immediately after that event. We still await the fulfilment of the six things to happen as per Daniel 9:24.

Click to expand...

keras said:

Every sensible person can see there HAS been a gap, of nearly 2000 years from the Crucifixion of Jesus at the end of the 69th period.
There is no identifiable 7 year period immediately after that event. We still await the fulfilment of the six things to happen as per Daniel 9:24.

Click to expand...

You are advancing Dispy error!

Daniel 9:2 says: “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.”

Are these seventy years linear, congruent and sequential?

Is there a gap between the 7th and the 8th week?

What future events do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?
(2) "make an end of sins"?
(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

And exactly in what way will this be accomplished? Please answer this last question individually for points 1-6.

safswan said:

NO PRE-TRIB FOUND IN EARLY WRITINGS SO FAR

EARLY WRITINGS -NO PRE-TRIB. RAPTURE 1

EARLY WRITINGS - NO PRE-TRIB.RAPTURE 2

EARLY WRITINGS - NO PRE-TRIB.RAPTURE 3​

Click to expand...

In the 1830s lots of people were having visions from God.. Strangely enough they contradicted each other. Consider Ella White, John Nelson Darby, Joseph Smith, John Wilson (British Israelism)..

It is very important that we consider who is being addressed in any passage of scripture.In Matthew 24 and parallel passages in Mark and Luke it is clear that Jesus' message was not to the nation of Israel but to His disciples who are the foundation of the Church.[Ephesians 2:20]He warned them of the dangers the disciples would encounter and also told them what would happen to Israel as well.Hence "you" is used to refer to the disciples and "they" is used of Israel.N.B.:



Matthew 24:
9Then shall THEY deliver YOU up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.



Mark 13:
9But take heed to yourselves: for THEY shall deliver YOU up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.



Luke 21:
12But before all these, THEY shall lay their hands on YOU, and persecute YOU, delivering YOU up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.



It is clear that Jesus is telling His disciples what to look out for in the years to come after His departure.This must include the time when the distinction between the Church and Israel would be very clear.Unless,like some,one believes all of Matthew 24 was accomplished in the past,then the message to the disciples would be relevant to all Christians and is what the apostles would have taught the Church.N.B.


Matthew 24:
26Wherefore 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.

27For 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.
28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And 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.

31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


This is what the apostles would have taught the Church,warning them to take heed that false prophets and false christs would not decieve them and then telling them of the manner of coming of the Lord for them the elect.Those described as "they" in this passage would include all unbelievers.


Other parts of the passage describe what would happen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of its destruction.


Luke 21:
20And when YE shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23But woe unto THEM that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon THIS PEOPLE.
24And THEY shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and JERUSALEM shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.



The Church and those who may follow them would escape from Jerusalem by following Jesus' instructions,while the unbelieving Israel would suffer the vengeance.History shows that this is exactly what happened as the Church fled to a place called Pella and escaped the siege of Jerusalem.


safswan.