The Rapture theory is true?

Spiritual Jew · Oct 26, 2020

iamlamad said:
Where does 1 Thes. 4 say anything about His coming after the tribulation of those days? You know it doesn't.

How many times do I have to tell you that just because two passages don't have all the same details doesn't mean they can't be related to each other? Do you think that 1 Thess 4:13-17 can't be related to 1 Cor 15:50-54 since the latter doesn't specifically mention believers being caught up to meet the Lord in the air? This type of argument is very weak and proves nothing.

I have been over this countless times, but just for you:
Paul tells us that his gathering comes just before wrath.
John tells us God's wrath begins at the 6th seal.
ANYONE can tell us that chapter 6 comes before chapter 19.

See how simple this is if we just follow John's timeline?

The wrath that comes just after that is fire that burns up the entire earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Only doctrinal bias would prevent someone from not seeing the obvious connection between 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.

As for Rev 6 coming before Rev 19....that is yet another extremely weak argument. Does what is described in Rev 12 come after what is described in Rev 11 chronologically? Clearly not unless you think Christ was born and also ascended to heaven after the 7th trumpet. I think even you would agree. If so, then why the insistence on seeing everything in the book as being chronological when it's obvious that not all of it is chronological?

Spiritual Jew · Oct 26, 2020

iamlamad said:
Where is it written that these two are ONE EVENT? It's not. You only assume that.

We all assume what we believe based on what we see taught in scripture. But our assumptions are based on evidence that we see in scripture. It's not just random assumptions. I believe what I see taught in scripture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of those two passages as referring to one event.

If you wish to believe they are one and the same, chances are very good that you will not be expecting Jesus when He comes pretrib. I really hope that works out for you.

I'm not concerned at all about not expecting Jesus to come pretrib because I am 100% convinced that pretrib is a false doctrine and, also, I expect Him to come at any time regardless. You don't have to be pretrib to expect Him to come at any time.

Do you have no response to what I said about how "the apostasia" should be understood in 2 Thess 2? Clearly, it's a reference to a falling away from the faith that has to occur BEFORE our being gathered to Him, but your doctrine doesn't allow for that. So, it's no wonder that you try to change the definition of the word to mean the departing of the church from the earth instead of what it really means, which is a departing from the faith.

Also, I showed you how Mark 13:24-27 (parallel passage to Matt 24:29-31) talks about Jesus returning AFTER the tribulation and the angels gathering the elect from both heaven and the earth at that time. I don't see where you had any response to that. What are your thoughts on it? You said it's only a gathering from heaven because you only looked at Matt 24:29-31 and not Mark 13:24-27. Are you willing to re-evaluate your understanding of the Olivet Discourse with this new information?

Timtofly · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
How can it be pretrib in light of this:

Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

This is a parable that symbolically describes the Bride of Christ going to meet the Bridegroom (Christ). It's reminiscent of 1 Thess 4:13-17. Notice that this is speaking of the coming of Christ of which no one knows the day or hour. He spoke about the same event earlier.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately 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:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And 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. 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Matthew 24:29-36 and Matthew 25:1-13 are clearly speaking of the same event, namely the second coming of Christ. Both passages indicate that on that day His people will be gathered to Him and both passages point out that no one knows the day or hour it will happen. And Jesus made it very clear that He will come AFTER the tribulation of those days.

I can't understand at all how anyone can look at those 2 passages and conclude that He is coming for His bride BEFORE "the tribulation of those days" when Jesus specifically indicated that He will come for His bride AFTER "the tribulation of those days".

What is your threshold of tribulation? 2 billion people dead and dying, or 2 million people dead and dying?

Pre-trib are the wise virgins. Post-Trib are the foolish ones knocking at the door. It does not say, "after the 7 year tribulation." It does not say, "after the 42 months of tribulation." It is not specific at all. It just says the tribulation of those days. It could have been after 70AD. It could have been after the Reformation. It could have been after WW1. It could have been after WW2. It could have been after the cold war. It wasn't, but it will be after the next war, famine, plague, and unprecedented attacks from the animal kingdom against sinful humanity. 25% of humanity will die. Then the Second Coming will be after that tribulation.

Then Jesus and the 144K will be on the earth reaping the final harvest (of human souls). This harvest takes place during the 6 Trumpets and 7 Thunders. Then the 7th Trumpet is the completion of all things.

Timtofly · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
I already did. Paul said that God RAISED US UP from being dead in sins to being alive with Christ in heavenly places. Explain to me how God RAISING US UP from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is not a resurrection. What else would you call it?

Explain to me why physical death would change the fact we are in Paradise in incorruptible bodies? Bodies which you would define as spiritual and without sin. This physical resurrection at death is the spiritual aspect, because the souls leaves this sinful body of flesh and blood never to return. Paul says this body is a tent. The spiritual one is a permanent building. The spiritual incorruptible body is physical in Paradise. Paradise is the physical Garden of Eden. It will be the physical New Jerusalem. Being "not on earth" does not make us or Paradise any less physical. It is Adam flesh that cannot enter, it is not restored nor resurrected. It would not hold the changed you. The change is death, because we have passed from Adam into Christ.

Timtofly · Oct 27, 2020

Freedm said:
Actually, Paul tells us that our bodies will be transformed, from the natural to the spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Which means this physical body is gone forever. We leave Adam behind and enter the Christ body. It happens at death, immediately. Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. No sheol, no Abraham's bosom, and definitely no sitting around waiting for a new body. It happened with Christ on the Cross. It has been waiting since then, symbolically.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
This is your evidence of the existence of a "Gentile church"? Show me where the concept of a "Gentile church" is taught. What do you do with all the times that Paul said that there is neither Jew nor Gentile and that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile believers in the church? Paul knew nothing of a "Gentile church". He only spoke about the one body of Christ, the one church that has both Jew and Gentile believers in it.

Show me where the concept of a "Gentile church" is taught. Do you have any concept of different dimensions? There is a spiritual dimension and a physical dimension; a spiritual realm and a physical realm. You are only thinking of scriptures referring to the spiritual realm: IN THE SPIRIT there is neither Jew nor Greek. But Paul often spoke of born again Gentiles as Gentiles, for in the physical realm, that did not change. In nearly ever epistle of Paul, He was addressing Gentile congregations.

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
CSB who risked their own necks for my life. Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches.
CEV but they have even risked their lives for me. I am grateful for them and so are all the Gentile churches.
EXB and who risked their own ·lives [neck] ·to save [L for] my life. I am thankful to them, and [L not only I, but] all the Gentile churches are thankful as well.
GNT they risked their lives for me. I am grateful to them—not only I, but all the Gentile churches as well.
HCSB who risked their own necks for my life. Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches.
PHILLIPS Shake hands for me with Priscilla and Aquila. They have not only worked with me for Christ, but they have faced death for my sake, Not only I, but all the Gentile churches, owe them a great debt. Give my love to the little church that meets in their house.
TLB In fact, they risked their lives for me, and I am not the only one who is thankful to them; so are all the Gentile churches.
NIRV They have put their lives in danger for me. I am thankful for them. So are all the Gentile churches.
NLT In fact, they once risked their lives for me. I am thankful to them, and so are all the Gentile churches.
NTE They put their lives on the line for me. It isn’t only me, but all the Gentile churches, that owe them a debt of gratitude.

Acts 20:4 (EXB) The men who went with him were Sopater [Rom. 16:21] son of Pyrrhus, from the city of Berea [17:10–15]; Aristarchus [19:29; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24] and Secundus, from the city of Thessalonica [17:1–9]; Gaius [19:29], from Derbe [14:20–21]; Timothy [Rom. 16:21]; and Tychicus [Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12] and Trophimus [21:29; 2 Tim. 4:20], two men from Asia [C all representatives of the Gentile churches delivering a financial gift to the church in Jerusalem].

Romans 1:13 (TLB) I want you to know, dear brothers, that I planned to come many times before (but was prevented) so that I could work among you and see good results, just as I have among the other Gentile churches.

Notice how Paul addresses his letters:
Eph. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
(These are Gentile churches.)

Paul knew nothing of a "Gentile church". It seems you just overlooked all these verses. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. We owe our salvation to him. It also seems many bible translators disagree with you.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Timtofly said:
Which means this physical body is gone forever. We leave Adam behind and enter the Christ body. It happens at death, immediately. Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. No sheol, no Abraham's bosom, and definitely no sitting around waiting for a new body. It happened with Christ on the Cross. It has been waiting since then, symbolically.

Wrong again. Why will you rob God of a day of Resurrection for the church? Why did God mention that the graves were opened? It is because God uses the OLD BODY - even bodies turned to dust: God brings all that "dust" together and reforms the body that was, then changes that body into a resurrection body and raises it out of the grave and into the air, where the spirits that Jesus brings with Him and REJOIN with their new body. All this will happen in an instant of time.
Which means this physical body is gone forever. WRONG! The old, dead body is used as the basis of the resurrection body. Take the martyr STephen, for example: it will be HIS BODY from the grave, but CHANGED.
We leave Adam behind and enter the Christ body. WRONG! The Adam body is used as the basis for the resurrection body. It is the Adam body CHANGED.
It happens at death, immediately. WRONG! The old body changed to a resurrection body happens on the day of resurrection. For the church, that would be the day of the Rapture. All that happens at death is the spirit with the soul leave the dead body and are escorted to heaven.
Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Finally! True. But only in spirit form. the dead body must wait for resurrection day.
No sheol, no Abraham's bosom Right! All that ended when Jesus conquered death. Then ALL the righteous could go straight to heaven.
definitely no sitting around waiting for a new body. WRONG! The dead in Christ are all waiting for the day of Resurrection when they will THEN get their new body - but it will be their OLD body from their grave CHANGED. ONLY JESUS was the "firstfruits" of the resurrection body - all others wait for resurrection day.
It happened with Christ on the Cross. Something happened: but no resurrection. What happened is that the debt of sin [DEATH] for all humans was PAID. That is what happened on the cross.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Timtofly said:
Explain to me why physical death would change the fact we are in Paradise in incorruptible bodies? Bodies which you would define as spiritual and without sin. This physical resurrection at death is the spiritual aspect, because the souls leaves this sinful body of flesh and blood never to return. Paul says this body is a tent. The spiritual one is a permanent building. The spiritual incorruptible body is physical in Paradise. Paradise is the physical Garden of Eden. It will be the physical New Jerusalem. Being "not on earth" does not make us or Paradise any less physical. It is Adam flesh that cannot enter, it is not restored nor resurrected. It would not hold the changed you. The change is death, because we have passed from Adam into Christ.

Explain to me why physical death would change the fact we are in Paradise in incorruptible bodies? WRONG! We don't or won't get "incorruptible bodies" until resurrection day; for the church, that will be on the day of the rapture. The dead in Christ go to heaven in SPIRIT form. Of course, for those that deny man is first a SPIRIT BEING that only lives in a flesh and blood body while on earth - will be lost when they try to picture spirits going to heaven w/o a body.
This physical resurrection at death WRONG! No such thing. No resurrection until resurrection DAY when ALL the dead in Christ will rise. Death is an enemy. At death the body quits working and the human spirit with the soul leaves the body. If they were born again, the spirit goes UP, but if a sinner, the spirit goes DOWN.
the souls leaves this sinful body of flesh and blood never to return. MYTH! WRONG! First The soul is tied very tightly to the spirit, but it is the human spirit that possesses a soul, not the other way around. When the physical body quits, the spirit with the soul slip right out, easier than taking off an overcoat. If born again, the Spirit with the soul are escorted to heaven, and will remain in spirit form until the day of Resurrection. Get this straight, God will bring together the "dust" that once made up a human body, and REFORM that body that WAS: It will be THEIR body - the same body that died. But after God reforms that body, then He will change it into a resurrection body that will look THE SAME. We will certainly recognize our friends there. Matthew wrote, "the graves were opened." Did you not read? "The dead in christ will rise first..." What "rises?" Of course the dead bodies rise. They will come up out of their graves.
The spiritual one is a permanent building. Paul is talking about our resurrection body. WE won't get that until the day of the rapture.
The spiritual incorruptible body is physical in Paradise. They touched and felt of Jesus "flesh and bone" body. On earth.
It is Adam flesh that cannot enter, it is not restored nor resurrected. MYTH! WRONG! It will be our OLD body changed.

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall blow, and the dead shall be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality.
It is the mortal body CHANGED. The dead shall be raised UP. That is speaking of the dead BODIES.

The change is death, MYTH! The change will be on resurrection day.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
We all assume what we believe based on what we see taught in scripture. But our assumptions are based on evidence that we see in scripture. It's not just random assumptions. I believe what I see taught in scripture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of those two passages as referring to one event.

I'm not concerned at all about not expecting Jesus to come pretrib because I am 100% convinced that pretrib is a false doctrine and, also, I expect Him to come at any time regardless. You don't have to be pretrib to expect Him to come at any time.

Do you have no response to what I said about how "the apostasia" should be understood in 2 Thess 2? Clearly, it's a reference to a falling away from the faith that has to occur BEFORE our being gathered to Him, but your doctrine doesn't allow for that. So, it's no wonder that you try to change the definition of the word to mean the departing of the church from the earth instead of what it really means, which is a departing from the faith.

Also, I showed you how Mark 13:24-27 (parallel passage to Matt 24:29-31) talks about Jesus returning AFTER the tribulation and the angels gathering the elect from both heaven and the earth at that time. I don't see where you had any response to that. What are your thoughts on it? You said it's only a gathering from heaven because you only looked at Matt 24:29-31 and not Mark 13:24-27. Are you willing to re-evaluate your understanding of the Olivet Discourse with this new information?

We all assume what we believe based on what we see taught in scripture. Finally! Something you wrote that I can agree with!
I believe what I see taught in scripture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of those two passages as referring to one event. And I believe what I see taught in scirpture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of these two passages as referring to TWO events separated by over 7 years of time. You think I am wrong; I think you are wrong. TIME will prove one theory or the other as truth.
I am 100% convinced that pretrib is a false doctrine And I am 100% convinced that pretrib is truth.
Do you have no response to what I said about how "the apostasia" should be understood in 2 Thess 2? Yes, I have a response: your response does not fit that passage when it is understood. a falling away does not fit a taking away. A falling away does not fit a restraining force being taken out of the way. A falling away does not fit the man of sin being revealed. Did you research that Greek word? Strong's gives us:
Apo:
"of separation,
of local separation,
after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...
of separation of a part from the whole, where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "standing," "stationary," or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

Then Paul wrote, "and now you know what is restraining....
Do YOU know what this restraining power is? We all should know because Paul TOLD US.

but your doctrine doesn't allow for that. Actually, it is the text itself that does not allow for a "falling away." It was a very poor translation that does not fit the context. Did you notice that in 3b the man of sin IS revealed?

Mark 13:24-27 (parallel passage to Matt 24:29-31) talks about Jesus returning AFTER the tribulation and the angels gathering the elect from both heaven and the earth at that time. It's very simple: that gathering cannot possibly be the rapture. Paul's rapture gathers from EARTH, not from heaven and not from heaven and earth. And that gathering is after the trib, when Paul's rapture is before the trib.

Are you willing to re-evaluate your understanding of the Olivet Discourse with this new information? My friend, I was not born yesterday. I am well aware of what both gospels say. And I say again, and gathering from the furthest reaches of heaven to the furthest reaches of earth simply does not fit Paul's gathering that will gather from earth. Neither can I or should I ignore the TIME difference.

What it does fit is God's promise to gather all of Jacob back to Israel, wherever they are.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
How many times do I have to tell you that just because two passages don't have all the same details doesn't mean they can't be related to each other? Do you think that 1 Thess 4:13-17 can't be related to 1 Cor 15:50-54 since the latter doesn't specifically mention believers being caught up to meet the Lord in the air? This type of argument is very weak and proves nothing.

The wrath that comes just after that is fire that burns up the entire earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Only doctrinal bias would prevent someone from not seeing the obvious connection between 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.

As for Rev 6 coming before Rev 19....that is yet another extremely weak argument. Does what is described in Rev 12 come after what is described in Rev 11 chronologically? Clearly not unless you think Christ was born and also ascended to heaven after the 7th trumpet. I think even you would agree. If so, then why the insistence on seeing everything in the book as being chronological when it's obvious that not all of it is chronological?

Does what is described in Rev 12 come after what is described in Rev 11 chronologically?
You forgot that John used parentheses. Leaving the parenthesis out, OF COURSE what is written in chapter 12 follows what is written in chapter 11.

The abomination and the division of the week happens in chapter 11, and the fleeing because they SAW the abomination happens in chapter 12.

Satan looses his throne as god of this world in chapter 11, so Michael goes to war with him in chapter 12. It is a very poor student of Revelation that does not see chronology.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
Show me where the concept of a "Gentile church" is taught. Do you have any concept of different dimensions? There is a spiritual dimension and a physical dimension; a spiritual realm and a physical realm. You are only thinking of scriptures referring to the spiritual realm: IN THE SPIRIT there is neither Jew nor Greek. But Paul often spoke of born again Gentiles as Gentiles, for in the physical realm, that did not change. In nearly ever epistle of Paul, He was addressing Gentile congregations.

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
CSB who risked their own necks for my life. Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches.
CEV but they have even risked their lives for me. I am grateful for them and so are all the Gentile churches.
EXB and who risked their own ·lives [neck] ·to save [L for] my life. I am thankful to them, and [L not only I, but] all the Gentile churches are thankful as well.
GNT they risked their lives for me. I am grateful to them—not only I, but all the Gentile churches as well.
HCSB who risked their own necks for my life. Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches.
PHILLIPS Shake hands for me with Priscilla and Aquila. They have not only worked with me for Christ, but they have faced death for my sake, Not only I, but all the Gentile churches, owe them a great debt. Give my love to the little church that meets in their house.
TLB In fact, they risked their lives for me, and I am not the only one who is thankful to them; so are all the Gentile churches.
NIRV They have put their lives in danger for me. I am thankful for them. So are all the Gentile churches.
NLT In fact, they once risked their lives for me. I am thankful to them, and so are all the Gentile churches.
NTE They put their lives on the line for me. It isn’t only me, but all the Gentile churches, that owe them a debt of gratitude.

Acts 20:4 (EXB) The men who went with him were Sopater [Rom. 16:21] son of Pyrrhus, from the city of Berea [17:10–15]; Aristarchus [19:29; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24] and Secundus, from the city of Thessalonica [17:1–9]; Gaius [19:29], from Derbe [14:20–21]; Timothy [Rom. 16:21]; and Tychicus [Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12] and Trophimus [21:29; 2 Tim. 4:20], two men from Asia [C all representatives of the Gentile churches delivering a financial gift to the church in Jerusalem].

Romans 1:13 (TLB) I want you to know, dear brothers, that I planned to come many times before (but was prevented) so that I could work among you and see good results, just as I have among the other Gentile churches.

Notice how Paul addresses his letters:
Eph. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
(These are Gentile churches.)

Paul knew nothing of a "Gentile church". It seems you just overlooked all these verses. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. We owe our salvation to him. It also seems many bible translators disagree with you.

None of those Bible translators would interpret the text they translated the way you do. They would not try to say that those verses are evidence for something you call "the Gentile church".

Just because there are locations where there are only Gentiles doesn't mean there is such thing as "the Gentile church". The church, as in the body of Christ, IS a spiritual organization and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in it. Why would your focus be on anything but the church that we are all part of spiritually?

Who cares if there are some churches where only Gentiles are in them because of the location? That means nothing. And it doesn't mean there's anything known as "the Gentile church". None of the passages you quoted refers to "the Gentile church". They only refer to individual churches that Gentiles attended in certain locations. Again, so what? That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. But, the church (body of Christ) consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers, is what matters.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
We all assume what we believe based on what we see taught in scripture. Finally! Something you wrote that I can agree with!

Let me see if I can come up with more we can agree on.

How about this: Jesus Christ is the King and ruler of heaven and earth right now (Matt 28:18, Eph 2:19-22, Rev 1:5-6).

Or how about this: There is no other name under heaven by which anyone can be saved but Jesus who is the way, the truth and the life (Acts 4:12, John 14:6).

I believe what I see taught in scripture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of those two passages as referring to one event. And I believe what I see taught in scirpture overall overwhelmingly supports my understanding of these two passages as referring to TWO events separated by over 7 years of time. You think I am wrong; I think you are wrong. TIME will prove one theory or the other as truth.
I am 100% convinced that pretrib is a false doctrine And I am 100% convinced that pretrib is truth.
Do you have no response to what I said about how "the apostasia" should be understood in 2 Thess 2? Yes, I have a response: your response does not fit that passage when it is understood. a falling away does not fit a taking away. A falling away does not fit a restraining force being taken out of the way. A falling away does not fit the man of sin being revealed. Did you research that Greek word? Strong's gives us:
Apo:
"of separation,
of local separation,
after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...
of separation of a part from the whole, where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "standing," "stationary," or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

Name one respected Bible scholar who thinks that the word apostasia can refer to people being caught up with the Lord rather than referring to rebellion and falling away from the faith. Just one.

Then Paul wrote, "and now you know what is restraining....
Do YOU know what this restraining power is? We all should know because Paul TOLD US.

It's not the church. It's the Holy Spirit. God is the only One who can restrain wickedness. He does not need to take the church out of the world in order for wickedness to be unrestrained. The church will still be here, but it will be lacking in power because God will no longer contend with the wicked at some point just like was the case in Noah's day. Much like what we see today. The church has not been able to stop atrocities like abortion and a major increase in violence and sexual immorality and things like that. With that in mind, why would you think the church would need to be raptured in order for wickedness to increase significantly?

but your doctrine doesn't allow for that. Actually, it is the text itself that does not allow for a "falling away." It was a very poor translation that does not fit the context. Did you notice that in 3b the man of sin IS revealed?

Oh, now you are blaming the translators. First, you redefine the word apostasia to mean something besides a falling away from faith and now you are blaming the translators for translating it poorly. This is just sad. You are coming across like you will do anything to change a passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Mark 13:24-27 (parallel passage to Matt 24:29-31) talks about Jesus returning AFTER the tribulation and the angels gathering the elect from both heaven and the earth at that time. It's very simple: that gathering cannot possibly be the rapture. Paul's rapture gathers from EARTH, not from heaven and not from heaven and earth. And that gathering is after the trib, when Paul's rapture is before the trib.

Did you actually read Mark 13:24-27?

Mark 13:24 But in those days, following that distress,“‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

How do you interpret this? Does it not say the angels will gather the elect from the ends of the earth? You say that's how we know it's a reference to the rapture, so why do you not accept this text as referring to the rapture?

Are you willing to re-evaluate your understanding of the Olivet Discourse with this new information? My friend, I was not born yesterday. I am well aware of what both gospels say. And I say again, and gathering from the furthest reaches of heaven to the furthest reaches of earth simply does not fit Paul's gathering that will gather from earth. Neither can I or should I ignore the TIME difference.

How does it not fit. You can see that 1 Thess 4:13-17 says Christ will have the dead in Christ (their souls) with Him, can't you? Those are the ones gathered from heaven.

1 Thess 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
None of those Bible translators would interpret the text they translated the way you do. They would not try to say that those verses are evidence for something you call "the Gentile church".

Just because there are locations where there are only Gentiles doesn't mean there is such thing as "the Gentile church". The church, as in the body of Christ, IS a spiritual organization and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in it. Why would your focus be on anything but the church that we are all part of spiritually?

Who cares if there are some churches where only Gentiles are in them because of the location? That means nothing. And it doesn't mean there's anything known as "the Gentile church". None of the passages you quoted refers to "the Gentile church". They only refer to individual churches that Gentiles attended in certain locations. Again, so what? That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. But, the church (body of Christ) consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers, is what matters.

None of those Bible translators would interpret the text they translated the way you do. Yet they all translated the Greek as "the Gentile churches." Of course that is the way they would "interpret" the text.

Why do you fight so against the word of God? Did Paul not write that God is waiting for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Yes, that is what is written. Why would God have Paul write this if it were not true? God is waiting for the full number of Gentiles to become believers. It is a fact: Gentiles make up a huge percentage of the body of Christ on earth today. Look, if you don't like the term" the Gentile church," then don't use it. But it is obvious that translators had no problem writing it.

The church, as in the body of Christ, IS a spiritual organization and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in it. I agree. But this spiritual organization is made up on physical people. A few are Jews, but MOST are Gentiles.

Let's get back to the original questions:

"What does 2000 years of church history has to do with the timing of His coming? Are you a JEW and so expecting your age to end with the 7 years of Jacob's trouble?"

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
None of those Bible translators would interpret the text they translated the way you do. Yet they all translated the Greek as "the Gentile churches." Of course that is the way they would "interpret" the text.

Why do you fight so against the word of God? Did Paul not write that God is waiting for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Yes, that is what is written. Why would God have Paul write this if it were not true? God is waiting for the full number of Gentiles to become believers. It is a fact: Gentiles make up a huge percentage of the body of Christ on earth today. Look, if you don't like the term" the Gentile church," then don't use it. But it is obvious that translators had no problem writing it.

The church, as in the body of Christ, IS a spiritual organization and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in it. I agree. But this spiritual organization is made up on physical people. A few are Jews, but MOST are Gentiles.

Let's get back to the original questions:

"What does 2000 years of church history has to do with the timing of His coming? Are you a JEW and so expecting your age to end with the 7 years of Jacob's trouble?"

Name one respected Bible scholar who thinks that the word apostasia can refer to people being caught up with the Lord rather than referring to rebellion and falling away from the faith. Just one.
Where have you been?
Dr. Thomas Ice
Roy Hicks: General Supervisor of the Foursquare denomination in former years.

Then again I must refer back to Strong's: "of separation of a part from the whole, where of a whole some part is taken"

BABerean2 · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
Did Paul not write that God is waiting for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Yes, that is what is written. Why would God have Paul write this if it were not true? God is waiting for the full number of Gentiles to become believers. It is a fact: Gentiles make up a huge percentage of the body of Christ on earth today. Look, if you don't like the term" the Gentile church," then don't use it. But it is obvious that translators had no problem writing it.

Based on Luke 21:24-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ.

Were all of the Israelites partially blinded, or were part blinded, and part were not blinded?
The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5.

.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
None of those Bible translators would interpret the text they translated the way you do. Yet they all translated the Greek as "the Gentile churches." Of course that is the way they would "interpret" the text.

The Bible never speaks of a corporate Gentile church. Individual churches here and there comprised of all or mostly Gentiles? Sure. But, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about there not being such thing as a corporate Gentile church. That is my point and I think you know that, but you are purposely trying to be difficult.

Why do you fight so against the word of God?

I can't believe the person who interprets the apostasia as the rapture of the church rather than a falling away from the faith and the person who is unwilling to acknowledge that Mark 13:24-27 speaks of a gathering of believers from the earth even though it specifically says so is asking me this question.

Did Paul not write that God is waiting for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Yes, that is what is written. Why would God have Paul write this if it were not true? God is waiting for the full number of Gentiles to become believers. It is a fact: Gentiles make up a huge percentage of the body of Christ on earth today. Look, if you don't like the term" the Gentile church," then don't use it. But it is obvious that translators had no problem writing it.

They never referred to a corporate Gentile church. They only referred to some local churches that were comprised of Gentiles. That's why I don't like the term. If you can show me even one verse that speaks of a corporate Gentile church then I would reconsider my view on that. A verse talking about the fullness of the Gentiles has nothing to do with a Gentile church, but rather speaks of the full number of Gentiles coming into the church that is comprised of both Jew and Gentile believers.

The church, as in the body of Christ, IS a spiritual organization and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in it. I agree. But this spiritual organization is made up on physical people. A few are Jews, but MOST are Gentiles.

So what? That is only because there are many more ethnic Gentiles (non-Jews) than ethnic Jews in the world.

Let's get back to the original questions:

"What does 2000 years of church history has to do with the timing of His coming? Are you a JEW and so expecting your age to end with the 7 years of Jacob's trouble?"

It doesn't matter what a non-Christian Jew is expecting. Don't you know how wrong they have been for the last 2000 years? That's why so many are not Christians because they are expecting something that the Bible doesn't teach and will never happen. The Messiah already came and they are still looking for Him to come for the first time. Why would you trust their judgment?

Spiritual Jew · Oct 27, 2020

iamlamad said:
Name one respected Bible scholar who thinks that the word apostasia can refer to people being caught up with the Lord rather than referring to rebellion and falling away from the faith. Just one.
Where have you been?
Dr. Thomas Ice
Roy Hicks: General Supervisor of the Foursquare denomination in former years.

Then again I must refer back to Strong's: "of separation of a part from the whole, where of a whole some part is taken"

I said respected Bible scholar, but oh well. I didn't specify that I personally had to respect them, so I'll let it go. A vast majority of Bible scholars disagree with those guys.

Anyway, I'll refer to Strong's also.

Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt
Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apostasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah)
Definition: defection, revolt
Usage: defection, apostasy, revolt.

None of those definitions have anything to do with being taken from the earth away from evil or wrath.

The word is used in one other verse in the Bible.

Acts 21:20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away (apostasia) from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

The word is used here to refer to the accusation that Paul was teaching the Jews to turn away from the teachings of Moses. Would you agree that the word is used here in relation to an accusation of rebellion of falling away from following the teachings of Moses? And, yet, you think that somehow it can't refer to a falling away from the faith in 2 Thess 2?

How is it that you are somehow better able to interpret Greek than all of the English Bible translators? I can't find one single English translation (and I looked at a lot of them) that translated the word apostasia the way you do. They all refer to a falling away from the faith or rebellion. If they are all wrong then how can we trust that any verses in the English Bibles that we read are true?

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Based on Luke 21:24-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ.

Were all of the Israelites partially blinded, or were part blinded, and part were not blinded?
The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5.

.

"Fullness of the Gentiles" and "the times of the Gentiles" are not the same thing.

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
I said respected Bible scholar, but oh well. I didn't specify that I personally had to respect them, so I'll let it go. A vast majority of Bible scholars disagree with those guys.

Anyway, I'll refer to Strong's also.

Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt
Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apostasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah)
Definition: defection, revolt
Usage: defection, apostasy, revolt.

None of those definitions have anything to do with being taken from the earth away from evil or wrath.

The word is used in one other verse in the Bible.

Acts 21:20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away (apostasia) from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

The word is used here to refer to the accusation that Paul was teaching the Jews to turn away from the teachings of Moses. Would you agree that the word is used here in relation to an accusation of rebellion of falling away from following the teachings of Moses? And, yet, you think that somehow it can't refer to a falling away from the faith in 2 Thess 2?

How is it that you are somehow better able to interpret Greek than all of the English Bible translators? I can't find one single English translation (and I looked at a lot of them) that translated the word apostasia the way you do. They all refer to a falling away from the faith or rebellion. If they are all wrong then how can we trust that any verses in the English Bibles that we read are true?

There is a HUGE context problem with a "falling away" being a good translation.

Question: in verse 3b: is the man of sin revealed?

iamlamad · Oct 27, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
Oh, now you are blaming the translators. First, you redefine the word apostasia to mean something besides a falling away from faith and now you are blaming the translators for translating it poorly. This is just sad. You are coming across like you will do anything to change a passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Did I write strong's? I assure you I did not. I just copied and pasted. He is showing us the real meaning of each part of the compound word, apostasia. It does not matter how it is usually used. The question we need ask is, CAN it be used as Strong's suggested: as a PART of a whole group moved spatially to another location, and it be done so fast the rest of the world appeared standing still?

I have changed nothing! I am only quoting and expert on Greek.

The Rapture theory is true?

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Lamad

Lamad

Newbie

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Similar threads