I think mid rapture or pre raptuer will happen why?

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
76
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
When did they create the word rapture?

It's not written in the bible because the OT and NT was written before the word was invented. The doctrine is written all over the bible, there's just not a single word to describe it.
The doctrine is not written all over thee Bible. You cannot name one verse in the Gospels where Jesus talks about it.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That's rubbish.

I use the written works of Josephus as an account to testify to Christ's historical validity for secularists who want secular proof.



Josephus has a place, but documenting and verifying prophecy is not it.


Sorry.

Translation: "Josephus is useful to defend my opinions, but Josephus is worthless if it means I might be wrong about something."

The real irony here is that I imagine that the portion of Josephus' work you use is going to be the Testimonium Flavianum, something generally regarded, at best, with suspicious by virtually all historians and scholars as a possible late interpolation; but when Josephus simply recounts the abuses of the Romans in their sacking of Jerusalem it cannot be reliable because... reasons.

Not too long ago I was engaged in a discussion with a Muslim fellow who insisted that St. Paul never existed, claiming there are no valid sources that uphold that Paul ever existed--and said that Paul's epistles were all written in the mid 2nd century by Marcion of Sinope. When evidence to the contrary--such as the writings of the fathers--were given as testimony and evidence of Paul, not least of which being St. Clement's letter written around 95 AD who mentions both Paul and Peter as having preached in Rome, the rebuttal was simply to dismiss these too as forgeries.

The reason for rejecting any evidence was an ideological one, not a rational or scholarly one. The evidence pointed to the historical reality of Paul of Tarsus, and that he is the earliest witness and author of the Christian tradition we have in writing. That is generally regarded as indisputable fact within the scholarly community, secular, religious, whatever. But Paul represented a problem, because if Paul existed, if his letters are authentic and early, then he represents a rather remarkable witness to the beliefs and teachings of the earliest Christian communities that existed; and that those communities were teaching a crucified and risen Jesus, and calling Him "Son of God". That simply does not mesh with Muslim dogma, which insists that Jesus was rescued from death on a cross and taken directly into heaven without tasting death, and is adamant in its polemical confession "God has no son".

If early Christians, as witnessed by Paul, actually did believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, buried, risen; and that He is called "Son of God" from the earliest strata of Christian religion, it indicates that Jesus' own immediate followers believed, confessed, and taught these things. That doesn't exactly bolster the Muslim position. Thus if we can get rid of Paul from the picture entirely, that whole problem goes away.

I don't very much see your rejection of Josephus' account of Jerusalem's sacking by the Romans as substantially different. You have opted to dismiss the historical record not out of legitimate criticism of Josephus' credibility as an historian, but because I used Josephus' account as corroboration with Luke's text. Because if Jesus has spoken, and those events have transpired, then it becomes further difficult for you to claim Jesus was not speaking about what transpired during the Jewish-Roman War and to insist on your own particular doctrines over and against the plain reading of Scripture, plain history, and plain reason.

That's an ideological rejection of Josephus, not a reasoned one.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
For a reason.

:thumbsup:

Yes. Because Luke is recording the Olivet Discourse which took place sometime in the late 20's/early 30's. Not recording, as past history, the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in the year 70.

If I write you a letter and say, "Next year I intend to visit France." and the following year I visit France. Are you going to claim I didn't visit France because, when I wrote you the letter, I did not say, "I visited France already"?

Such would be absurd.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Shocker

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,175
34
✟3,534.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Translation: "Josephus is useful to defend my opinions, but Josephus is worthless if it means I might be wrong about something."

The real irony here is that I imagine that the portion of Josephus' work you use is going to be the Testimonium Flavianum, something generally regarded, at best, with suspicious by virtually all historians and scholars as a possible late interpolation; but when Josephus simply recounts the abuses of the Romans in their sacking of Jerusalem it cannot be reliable because... reasons.

Not too long ago I was engaged in a discussion with a Muslim fellow who insisted that St. Paul never existed, claiming there are no valid sources that uphold that Paul ever existed--and said that Paul's epistles were all written in the mid 2nd century by Marcion of Sinope. When evidence to the contrary--such as the writings of the fathers--were given as testimony and evidence of Paul, not least of which being St. Clement's letter written around 95 AD who mentions both Paul and Peter as having preached in Rome, the rebuttal was simply to dismiss these too as forgeries.

The reason for rejecting any evidence was an ideological one, not a rational or scholarly one. The evidence pointed to the historical reality of Paul of Tarsus, and that he is the earliest witness and author of the Christian tradition we have in writing. That is generally regarded as indisputable fact within the scholarly community, secular, religious, whatever. But Paul represented a problem, because if Paul existed, if his letters are authentic and early, then he represents a rather remarkable witness to the beliefs and teachings of the earliest Christian communities that existed; and that those communities were teaching a crucified and risen Jesus, and calling Him "Son of God". That simply does not mesh with Muslim dogma, which insists that Jesus was rescued from death on a cross and taken directly into heaven without tasting death, and is adamant in its polemical confession "God has no son".

If early Christians, as witnessed by Paul, actually did believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, buried, risen; and that He is called "Son of God" from the earliest strata of Christian religion, it indicates that Jesus' own immediate followers believed, confessed, and taught these things. That doesn't exactly bolster the Muslim position. Thus if we can get rid of Paul from the picture entirely, that whole problem goes away.

I don't very much see your rejection of Josephus' account of Jerusalem's sacking by the Romans as substantially different. You have opted to dismiss the historical record not out of legitimate criticism of Josephus' credibility as an historian, but because I used Josephus' account as corroboration with Luke's text. Because if Jesus has spoken, and those events have transpired, then it becomes further difficult for you to claim Jesus was not speaking about what transpired during the Jewish-Roman War and to insist on your own particular doctrines over and against the plain reading of Scripture, plain history, and plain reason.

That's an ideological rejection of Josephus, not a reasoned one.

-CryptoLutheran

How can Josephus be wrong about prophecy?

He never set out to confirm it, nor do his writings.


If you can match prophecy to specific events he wrote about, Im all ears, but the secular verification needs to be objective, not obscure..

You would also need to reference his work along with your claim if you are trying to teach us something you feel he details specifically regarding prophecy.

If Josephus for example paralleled the events of Daniels prophecy with his own writing, you might have my attention.

But Ive read his writings and cannot for the life of me see what you see.


Yes, I use Josephus account of Christ as a secular document that shows Christ wasn't just written about in the Bible.

There are many secular accounts of Christ historically that I use to show people who don't believe that Christ wasn't just a biblical make believe character.

We are talking about prophecy here, and I feel as though Josephus doesn't provide adequate information, nor is there a second witness to the events.
 
Upvote 0

Shocker

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,175
34
✟3,534.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes. Because Luke is recording the Olivet Discourse which took place sometime in the late 20's/early 30's. Not recording, as past history, the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in the year 70.

If I write you a letter and say, "Next year I intend to visit France." and the following year I visit France. Are you going to claim I didn't visit France because, when I wrote you the letter, I did not say, "I visited France already"?

Such would be absurd.

-CryptoLutheran

Luke didn't give an objective time tho.

That would be saying that Christ was to return in their lifetime, and you and I both know that never happened.
 
Upvote 0
N

n2thelight

Guest
Christ ascended.

Joh_3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Joh_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Ascend
αναβαίνω
anabainō
an-ab-ah'ee-no
; to go up (literally or figuratively): - arise, ascend (up), climb (go, grow, rise, spring) up, come (up).


"Caught up"
αρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).



As you can plainly see from the living word of God, that Christ, who is God, hasn't a need to be "taken by force" or "plucked up".

Jesus Chrst is God, Jesus Christ ascended.


If he was caught up, we wouldn't have this major contrast in descriptions regarding how he left the earth.

All good ascend works,fact remains He went bact to Heaven where He remains now...Was'nt looking for a play on words,just the point of who the Man Child was,and where He is now........
 
Upvote 0
N

n2thelight

Guest
So are you saying we all tranform while on earth in the middle of the tribulation before Jesus returns?

Or if you're post-trib, are you saying we all transform at the end of the tribulation as we gather to Christ on earth? But that would make the 7th trumpet fall at the end of the tribulation from your belief. Where's the vials?

Im post trib...We all are changed at the 7th trump...

As for the vials,here's how I see it,the seals trumps and vials happen around the same time,meaning...

1rst trump
1rst vial
1rst seal

2nd trump
2nd vial
2nd seal

and so on,up until the 7th

I don't believe nobody is raptured to Heaven,Christ comes here,where He shall remain for all eternity.The only way one gets to Heaven is,if they die first,and they shall return with Christ when He comes.....
 
Upvote 0
J

Jerico Miles

Guest
Luke doesn't, because Luke's text presents things that will unfold in the lifetime of the apostles. The text isn't saying "This already happened", it's saying "This will happen to you". And it did.

-CryptoLutheran

You mean like this in Luke's discourse?

Luke 21:10-11 [NIV]
(10) Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. (11) There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.


The only things is, these things has happened over the last 2000 years. We've had earthquakes, wars, signs in the heavens, famines and pestilence since the book of Genesis. What makes these things happening at 70 AD unique from 500 AD, 1000 AD, or 1700 AD?

This is also why so many people that predicted Jesus returning in their lifetime didn't happen who lived prior to 1948.

But since 1948, there's been more prophecies of His second coming being fulfilled more than anytime ever since His resurrection, especially the last 10 years. Even some utterly compelling signs that haven't been fulfilled in the past like a severe increase in knowledge that we have today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
J

Jerico Miles

Guest
The doctrine is not written all over thee Bible. You cannot name one verse in the Gospels where Jesus talks about it.

It is, you just can't see it. I can name several but you will only misinterpret things you read like the first seal of Revelation where you think the rider is George Washington on a white horse.

So when did you say the great tribulation took place again?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jerico Miles

Guest
Im post trib...We all are changed at the 7th trump...

As for the vials,here's how I see it,the seals trumps and vials happen around the same time,meaning...

1rst trump
1rst vial
1rst seal

2nd trump
2nd vial
2nd seal

and so on,up until the 7th

I don't believe nobody is raptured to Heaven,Christ comes here,where He shall remain for all eternity.The only way one gets to Heaven is,if they die first,and they shall return with Christ when He comes.....

Ahh I see. Well I believe everyone is entitled to their own belief. Not saying I agree with it but thanks for sharing your view.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You mean like this in Luke's discourse?

Luke 21:10-11 [NIV]
(10) Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. (11) There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.


The only things is, these things has happened over the last 2000 years. We've had earthquakes, wars, signs in the heavens, famines and pestilence since the book of Genesis. What makes these things happening at 70 AD unique from 500 AD, 1000 AD, or 1700 AD?

Yes, these are things that have happened and been happening since the beginning of civilization and recorded history. I don't believe these are the signs that people were to look for concerning Jerusalem and the Temple's ruin.

This is also why so many people that predicted Jesus returning in their lifetime didn't happen who lived prior to 1948.

But since 1948, there's been more prophecies of His second coming being fulfilled more than anytime ever since His resurrection, especially the last 10 years. Even some utterly compelling signs that haven't been fulfilled in the past like a severe increase in knowledge that we have today.

And with that I disagree completely. The establishment of modern Israel and Palestine by the United Nations from the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine isn't prophetic. It was simply something that happened in recent history.

There is nothing significant about it. The prophecies concerning the Jewish return to the Land were fulfilled with Cyrus' decree when the Jews were allowed to return back to Judah following the Babylonian Captivity, returning from the Exile. The return of the Jews to the Land fulfilled those promises from God nearly five hundred years before Christ. They are not left unfulfilled, they have been fulfilled for the last 2500 years. All the prophecies of the pre-Exilic prophets concerning the Jewish return and retaking the land has been fulfilled with their return to the land following Cyrus' decree and the ending of the Captivity--the city and Temple rebuilt.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
J

Jerico Miles

Guest
There is nothing significant about it. The prophecies concerning the Jewish return to the Land were fulfilled with Cyrus' decree when the Jews were allowed to return back to Judah following the Babylonian Captivity, returning from the Exile. The return of the Jews to the Land fulfilled those promises from God nearly five hundred years before Christ. They are not left unfulfilled, they have been fulfilled for the last 2500 years. All the prophecies of the pre-Exilic prophets concerning the Jewish return and retaking the land has been fulfilled with their return to the land following Cyrus' decree and the ending of the Captivity--the city and Temple rebuilt.

-CryptoLutheran

Lemme get this straight. Jesus said in His discourse to His disciples that His return will occur at a time when the Jews return to their homeland as a nation symbolic of the Fig Tree, and you're saying that has been fulfilled 500 years before Jesus was born?

Is that what you're telling me?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Lemme get this straight. Jesus said in His discourse to His disciples that His return will occur at a time when the Jews return to their homeland as a nation symbolic of the Fig Tree, and you're saying that has been fulfilled 500 years before Jesus was born?

Is that what you're telling me?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

The fig tree doesn't have anything to do with the return of the Jews to the Land.

Jesus doesn't have anything to say about a Jewish return to the Land.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
76
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
It is, you just can't see it. I can name several but you will only misinterpret things you read like the first seal of Revelation where you think the rider is George Washington on a white horse.

So when did you say the great tribulation took place again?
The first horseman is Constantine. George Washington rode a pale horse named blue-skin. I see that you cannot name one verse where Jesus talks about a rapture.
 
Upvote 0

10s3r

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
172
5
✟412.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In the following passage we are told to suffer tribulation up to the time when Christ shall come to be glorified in His saints.

That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know. So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: [Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Do I need to remind people what day, "in that day," refers to?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jerico Miles

Guest
Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

The fig tree doesn't have anything to do with the return of the Jews to the Land.

Jesus doesn't have anything to say about a Jewish return to the Land.

-CryptoLutheran

I didn't say Jesus said that has anything to do with their return. I said the fig tree is symbolic of Israel. So if you don't think the fig tree is Israel, than what is The Parable of the Fig Tree all about that Jesus spoke of?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums