Is the rapture a lie?

[expos4ever]

Not seeing where you are going with this. Jesus ascended into Heaven in AD 33. Only His disciples witnessed it according to Acts 1. As pointed out above Revelation 1:7 it is a time future to the ascension of Christ.

I see where you are going, but in a very real sense, the explosive birth of Christianity as a dominant force in the world can be reasonably interpreted as interpreted as fulfilling the prophecy that "every eye will see Him". I suggest you are being overly literal in respect to fulfillment of prophecy. Again, no time now to explain but Bible authors never intended to be taken literally in all cases. We know this from the clear fact that language like "the stars will fall from the sky" clearly, and I mean clearly, represent political change, and are not to be taken literally.

 

[redleghunter]

It cannot be emphasized enough - historians tell us that Daniel 7 was exceedingly well-known to Jews of the first century. Daniel 7 refers to the enthronement of a Son of Man character who comes up to heaven "on the clouds" to be enthroned as King over the whole World.

As I said previously. Yes Daniel 7:13 is the Son of Man presented to the Ancient of Days, the Father. I don't disagree with this. I disagree with your notion everywhere we see 'coming on the clouds' refers to an upward ascent. It doesn't as we see here.

Coming on the Clouds verses

I do not have the time to provide the details now, but I suggest it is Biblically quite clear that this enthronement has already happened - with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Of course, we know that after the ascension of Christ in Acts 1 He was seated at the Right Hand of the Father. Stephen testifies to this when he says "“Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:56)

Again: to take "coming on the clouds" as a downward descent from heaven to Earth totally abuses Daniel 7! Again, no time to make the case in detail but when a New Testament author quotes from the Old Testament - and the thing about "coming on the clouds" is clearly a quote from Daniel 7 as any Bible will indicate through a cross-reference - they are not fooling around: they intend the reader to understand that the Old Testament account being referenced is now being fulfilled.

Again, Daniel 7:13 was never in contention in my statements. Having an upward movement for all references to 'coming with the clouds' was my contention.

 

[redleghunter]

I see where you are going, but in a very real sense, the explosive birth of Christianity as a dominant force in the world can be reasonably interpreted as interpreted as fulfilling the prophecy that "every eye will see Him".

Yet we have no evidence that 'every eye will see Him' from any of the apostles. In fact the Risen Christ while on earth for 40 days was only revealed to believers in Him:

Acts 1: NASB
1The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

1 Corinthians 15: NASB
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

It was not until Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit that the church begins to largely grow taking in 3,000 souls that day and another few thousand in the days after. See Acts chapters 2-4.

I suggest you are being overly literal in respect to fulfillment of prophecy. Again, no time now to explain but Bible authors never intended to be taken literally in all cases.

No of course not. We take the Bible literally where it is clearly literal and we take it metaphorically where it is clearly metaphorical (like some parables or direct metaphors Jesus used like "I am the door").

We also would not believe in a literal dragon/beast of Revelation where a drunk harlot is riding it. That would be apocalyptic language which must be interpreted.

What is error is when we try to take what is presented literal and try to allegorize it or read in a metaphor.

We know this from the clear fact that language like "the stars will fall from the sky" clearly, and I mean clearly, represent political change, and are not to be taken literally.

Not necessarily. Even the ancients observed 'heavenly bodies' falling from the sky. They would back then consider meteors as 'stars falling from the sky.' The sun and moon not giving light is something that happens when large objects (even nuclear weapons) hit the surface of the earth and kick up so much dust it reaches the atmosphere and both the light from the sun and moon are not seen at all or looks like sackcloth covering it.

I was in Desert Storm and in a location near the Kuwaiti oil fields which Saddam ordered flamed. Three days of uncontrolled oil fires made it dark all day for three days until the wind shifted. We had to use halogen flood lights to get around at high noon.

Remember Genesis 19...

Genesis 19: NASB
23The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

So let's not rule out the 'stars falling from the sky' as something other than large objects of heavenly origin. As I quote Genesis 19, it's been done before.

And Sodom and Gomorrah is no fairy tale.

The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

 

[expos4ever]

Hi regle,

Why would a New Testament author use the term “coming on the clouds” to denote a reutrn to earth when the only biblicsl precedent involves an upward ascent?

Plus there is mounds of other evidence to support the notion that Jesus becomes king at the resurrection. And that is what Daniel 7 is all about.

More later.

 

[mkgal1]

Yet we have no evidence that 'every eye will see Him' from any of the apostles. In fact the Risen Christ while on earth for 40 days was only revealed to believers in Him:

Something to consider regarding Rev 1:7 ("every eye will see Him"). This is a quote from the comment section of this page, Will Jesus' second coming be in the clouds? I'm not so sure...


In Rev 1:7 it says:
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every EYE shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

Eye is G3788 in Strong’s Concordance and is used for:
1.)the eye
2.)metaph. the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing

“Every eye shall see him” does not necessarily mean that people will physically see him, but may in fact perceive his coming from a sense of knowing due to the Kingdom of God being within them. This is what he probably meant when he said that the Kingdom of God does not come with observation (by watching), and he warned the disciples that there will come a day in which they long to see (different Greek word, not the same as observation, but similar in that they would like to physically perceive with the eyes) one of the days of the Son of man, but that they wouldn’t. Then he continues by warning them to not follow after those who tell them to come see (perceive with the physical eyes). Then he goes on to say that he will suffer and be rejected. Followed by how the days leading up to the flood will be much like the days of the Son of man that will lead up to destruction. They ate, drank, married wives, gave their daughters in marriage right up until Noah entered the ark, followed by the flood that destroyed all the aforementioned people. Same as in the days of Lot, they drank, bought, sold, planted and built. The same day Lot left, Sodom was destroyed. Yeshua goes on to say that it will be the same in the day of when the Son of man is revealed. He goes on to warn people not to go back to get their stuff and not to leave the field. He then cites Lot’s wife as an example, those who try to save their (earthly) lives will lose it and those who lose their (earthly) lives will save it.
**********************************************

I think the trouble is seeing "His coming" or the "reign of Christ" as one single event, when it's really more of a series of events (His death; resurrection; ascension into heaven; Pentecost; destruction of the Temple) they ALL have great significance.

Also....references to "all" and "every" may point to the future, but these events could be the fulfillment of the beginning of His will being brought to completion. That theology is called "already, but not yet".

The theological concept of “already but not yet” holds that believers are actively taking part in the kingdom of God, although the kingdom will not reach its full expression until sometime in the future. We are “already” in the kingdom, but we do “not yet” see it in its glory. The “already but not yet” theology is related to kingdom theology or inaugurated eschatology

 

[redleghunter]

Why would a New Testament author use the term “coming on the clouds” to denote a reutrn to earth when the only biblicsl precedent involves an upward ascent?

Well of course. As I pointed out now several times the NT shows two things. Jesus ascending into Heaven in Luke 24 and Acts 1. The angels in Acts 1 told the disciples Jesus would come back again the same way He was ascended.

So, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why after presenting this three times now, I get the same answers. It's been quite some time, but do I need to switch to French?

Actes 1 La Bible du Semeur (BDS)
9 Après ces mots, ils le virent s’élever dans les airs et un nuage le cacha à leur vue. 10 Ils gardaient encore les yeux fixés au ciel pendant qu’il s’éloignait, quand deux hommes vêtus de blanc se présentèrent devant eux et leur dirent: 11 Hommes de Galilée, pourquoi restez-vous ainsi à regarder le ciel? Ce Jésus qui a été enlevé au ciel du milieu de vous, en redescendra un jour de la même manière que vous l’avez vu y monter.

12 Alors les apôtres quittèrent la colline qu’on appelle mont des Oliviers, située à environ un kilomètre Jérusalem, et rentrèrent en ville.

I have to say the French is a lot more clear on the verses above.

Plus there is mounds of other evidence to support the notion that Jesus becomes king at the resurrection. And that is what Daniel 7 is all about.

The account in Acts and John tell us Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days (Acts 1) and then ascended into Heaven. Then Stephen before he is stoned to death sees the Son of Man standing at the Right Hand of God. So, once again, I don't argue your point there.

 

[redleghunter]

In Rev 1:7 it says:
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every EYE shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

Eye is G3788 in Strong’s Concordance and is used for:
1.)the eye
2.)metaph. the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing

Or the easiest translation is how every translation team came up with. Meaning our eyes. Using a lexicon to find 'the right' translation for 'our theology' just does not support looking at passages in an exegetical or even systematic way. To read into the text something not clearly there is eisegesis.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

“Every eye shall see him” does not necessarily mean that people will physically see him, but may in fact perceive his coming from a sense of knowing due to the Kingdom of God being within them. This is what he probably meant when he said that the Kingdom of God does not come with observation (by watching), and he warned the disciples that there will come a day in which they long to see (different Greek word, not the same as observation, but similar in that they would like to physically perceive with the eyes) one of the days of the Son of man, but that they wouldn’t. Then he continues by warning them to not follow after those who tell them to come see (perceive with the physical eyes). Then he goes on to say that he will suffer and be rejected. Followed by how the days leading up to the flood will be much like the days of the Son of man that will lead up to destruction. They ate, drank, married wives, gave their daughters in marriage right up until Noah entered the ark, followed by the flood that destroyed all the aforementioned people. Same as in the days of Lot, they drank, bought, sold, planted and built. The same day Lot left, Sodom was destroyed. Yeshua goes on to say that it will be the same in the day of when the Son of man is revealed. He goes on to warn people not to go back to get their stuff and not to leave the field. He then cites Lot’s wife as an example, those who try to save their (earthly) lives will lose it and those who lose their (earthly) lives will save it.

I think the trouble is seeing "His coming" or the "reign of Christ" as one single event, when it's really more of a series of events (His death; resurrection; ascension into heaven; Pentecost; destruction of the Temple) they ALL have great significance.

Also...."all" and "every" may point to the future, but these events could be the fulfillment of the beginning of His will being brought to completion. That theology is called "already, but not yet".

Acts chapter one pretty much torpedoes this 'spiritualization' of the Kingdom of God. Yes as followers of Christ blood bought by Him we are Kingdom citizens here on earth. We are what the NT calls sojourners (1 Peter 2:11) in this world but not of it. Basically as Christians we are pilgrims in an unholy land. Jesus also told Pilate His Kingdom was not of this world. And then in Acts 1 we see Jesus physically ascend into Heaven and in Acts 7, Stephen sees Christ standing at the Right Hand of God. The Apostles Creed puts it as Jesus Christ is "seated at the Right Hand of the Father."

The Day of the Lord is well attested to in both the OT and NT. This is a physical event. Meaning, it will happen and not an allegory or metaphor.

As an aside note, The Day of Christ is also spoken of in three instances by the apostle Paul, but seems to be addressed only to Christians as the Day of the Lord is judgment.

 

[mkgal1]

Or the easiest translation is how every translation team came up with. Meaning our eyes. Using a lexicon to find 'the right' translation for 'our theology' just does not support looking at passages in an exegetical or even systematic way. To read into the text something not clearly there is eisegesis.

Except, as you've written, there's not been evidence to point to "every eye" meaning every person's vision.

When Stephen was stoned.....didn't those that stoned him realize (in their mind's eye) that Stephen was speaking the truth? I see that as how the truth is being spread...(even if it's rejected at first):

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

.....why else would they respond by covering their ears and yelling at the top of their voices?

 

[mkgal1]

The Day of the Lord is well attested to in both the OT and NT. This is a physical event. Meaning, it will happen and not an allegory or metaphor.

I think you're misunderstanding my belief (as well as the belief of a few other posters as well). I'm not suggesting there is no Second Coming (or that it's only a spiritual event). I'm saying it should be separated from the other events that mention the "coming of the Son of Man".

 

[mkgal1]

Basically as Christians we are pilgrims in an unholy land.

But what did Jesus work so hard on teaching when He spent time with the disciples? He brought them over, across the sea, into what they knew as "unholy land". He transforms what is unholy into holy. Isn't that the message of the Gospel in a nutshell?

I love the account of the man who lived in the burial caves.....(He and the land where examples of what the Jews distanced themselves from as the most impure). Jesus transformed this man.

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 5:1-20 - New Living Translation

 

[redleghunter]

Except, as you've written, there's not been evidence to point to "every eye" meaning every person's vision.

I don't see the text as being unclear. Every eye will see Him even those who pierced Him.

Revelation 1: NASB
4John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The above bolded, according to the external evidence, was delivered to John in the latter portion of the 1st century after the death, resurrection, ascension of Christ; and after the razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

When Stephen was stoned.....didn't those that stoned him realize (in their mind's eye) that Stephen was speaking the truth? I see that as how the truth is being spread...(even if it's rejected at first):

They obviously thought he was a heretic as they stoned him.

.....why else would they respond by covering their ears and yelling at the top of their voices?

Because what they were hearing (and not seeing as Stephen was) was considered blasphemy. They stoned him for it.

 

[redleghunter]

I think you're misunderstanding my belief (as well as the belief of a few other posters as well). I'm not suggesting there is no Second Coming (or that it's only a spiritual event). I'm saying it should be separated from the other events that mention the "coming of the Son of Man".

I've only seen two views try to separate the Second coming from the 'coming of the Son of Man' and those are partial preterism and dominionism.

 

[redleghunter]

But what did Jesus work so hard on teaching when He spent time with the disciples? He brought them over, across the sea, into what they knew as "unholy land". He transforms what is unholy into holy. Isn't that the message of the Gospel in a nutshell?

I love the account of the man who lived in the burial caves.....(He and the land where examples of what the Jews distanced themselves from as the most impure). Jesus transformed this man.

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 5:1-20 - New Living Translation

Really don't know what you are trying to explain here. However, Jesus made it clear in the High Priestly prayer in John 17 that His followers are in the world but not of it.

John 17 NASB:
13“But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

We are not going to bring about the Kingdom of God on a temporal basis as the dominionists describe but Christ destroying the nations and setting up His Kingdom on Earth.

Hebrews 10: NASB
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

 

[mkgal1]

According to N.T. Wright's book, Revelation for Everyone, the ancient Jewish belief of "heaven" was "God's sphere of being and operation". The place where "heaven" (God's being and operation) and "earth" (our sphere....humanity) collide was the Temple in Jerusalem. The early Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth had become, in person, the place where heaven and earth met. Their concern was how to deal with the growing "religion" that was in opposition to them, the worship of Ceasar. Should they resist? According to Wright.....the book of Revelations is to answer their questions. It's important to keep it in the proper perspective.

 

[mkgal1]

They obviously thought he was a heretic as they stoned him.

Did they really believe that, though? Or were they just protecting their interest in the control of the Temple and knew Stephen was a threat to that (as Jesus was)?

Why were they covering their ears? To me.....that seems to be their denial of the truth that was in front of them (what Stephen was saying.....and his appearance as he saw Jesus).

 

[redleghunter]

Did they really believe that, though? Or were they just protecting their interest in the control of the Temple and knew Stephen was a threat to that (as Jesus was)?

Why were they covering their ears? To me.....that seems to be their denial of the truth that was in front of them (what Stephen was saying.....and his appearance as he saw Jesus).

A definite possibility there were those who knew and did not want their apple cart upset and then there were those who were following the ones who did know and didn't know any better. Either way, none of them saw what Stephen did as he explained it to them. His face shining should have been an indicator to those in attendance.

 

[redleghunter]

According to N.T. Wright's book, Revelation for Everyone, the ancient Jewish belief of "heaven" was the "God's sphere of being and operation". The place where "heaven" (God's being and operation) and "earth" (our sphere....humanity) collide was the Temple in Jerusalem. The early Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth had become, in person, the place where heaven and earth met. Their concern was how to deal with the growing "religion" that was in opposition to them, the worship of Ceasar. Should they resist? According to Wright.....the book of Revelations is to answer their questions. It's important to keep it in the proper perspective.

Indeed every prophecy must mean something to the generation hearing it and to those in the future. The Virgin conceiving a son is a good example.

What is interesting about Hebrew prophecy (and Revelation is very Hebrew after chapter 3) is the fulfillment. For some reason all Christians have no issue with the fact every Messianic prophecy Jesus fulfilled was literally fulfilled. Yet somehow the yet to be fulfilled prophecies have to be explained away in material fashion.

 

[mkgal1]

I've only seen two views try to separate the Second coming from the 'coming of the Son of Man' and those are partial preterism and dominionism.

Yes, my view is partial preterism (as is all of Christianity).

 

[mkgal1]

Really don't know what you are trying to explain here. However, Jesus made it clear in the High Priestly prayer in John 17 that His followers are in the world but not of it.

When Paul used the word "wordly" he wasn't referring to the soil of the earth (he was referring to an ideology that runs counter to Christ's ways). I think it's the same with that reference as well.

God is "making ALL things new"---and that includes all His creation, not just humans (in my belief).

------>N. T. Wright develops this theme in his book Simply Christian, saying, “The point of Christianity is not… to go to heaven when you die. [Rather, it is] putting the whole creation to rights…”

He goes on to say in Surprised by Hope:

You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that’s about to roll over a cliff. You are not restoring a great painting that’s shortly going to be thrown on the fire. You are not planting roses in a garden that’s about to be dug up for a building site. You are—strange as it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself—accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God’s new world.~https://tifwe.org/better-than-new-gods-grand-restoration-plan/​

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

— Revelation 21:5​

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, my view is partial preterism (as is all of Christianity).

I highly doubt that. Probably the majority eschatological positions are Millennialism and it's various views and the a-Millennial view. Preterism is a 20th century theory taking parts of the a-Millennial view and adding historical events to prophecies.

The one thing I like about partial preterism is the very FACT that all of the 27 books of the NT would have to be written before 70AD. This includes Revelation as well. Yet then in discussions with preterists on dating the NT, a lot take a liberal skeptic textual view and tell me some books of the NT were written in the second century. So, I've seen that inconsistency.