Is the rapture a lie?

[Erik Nelson]

...Hippolytus (170AD - 235AD) wrote:
"These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? who shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe on Him.
For the Lord says, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh..."

So, according to Hippolytus of Rome in the early 3rd century AD...

Matt 24 = Rev 18 = Judgement of Jerusalem & Herod's Temple in 70 AD = Josephus' descriptions thereof​

had already occurred? Sounds like he knew that the 2nd Coming (Rev 19) and Millennium (Rev 20) were drawing nigh.

I find in this support for Preterism, identifying "Constantine" as the secret name (Rev 19:12) of the physical manifestation in bodily form of the 2nd Coming event (Rev 19). Indeed, early Christians acknowledged the "1 Biblical day = 1000 years" so "7 days of [re-]Creation = 7000 years" theory, according to which Creation & Eden dated to 5500 BC, such that the 1000-year Millennium (Rev 20) = 7th Biblical Sabbath-day of Rest would begin around 500 AD...

around the time of Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and the victory of Christianity.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Fair enough.
Point well taken.

But then - this seems a bit of a different thing IMO and hard to mistake for anything else as it were.

"and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other". etc.

well, after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Herodian Temple in 70 AD (=Rev 18), the Christian victory under Constantine, Theodosius & Justinian (=Rev 19) gathered together all the disparate Christian communities across the then-known world into a united Orthodox Catholic Church, all agreeing on fundamental doctrines, creeds, etc. which remained universally accepted for the next thousand years (=Rev 20)

 

[Erik Nelson]

Then reject the teachings of Luther and the reformers and return to the Roman Catholicism of yesteryear.

Show what must take place after the things which John was shown in around 90 A.D. cannot possibly have meant what happened in 70 A.D. some 20 years before - as those here have been saying.

Yours is the far fetched doctrine. It is IMO so far more far fetched than the rapture that it can't even be compared to it as a stretch of what the scriptures really teach.

Nor is it in the slightest bit an "amusing" heresy as most of us see it. It is heresy in the highest degree.

It is those who believe in the literal body and blood in the Eucharist who are rejecting what was logically and literally true about the elements given to the Apostles at the last supper.

It is people like you who are saying that the bread and wine the Lord handed to the disciples (with His own hands) when He said "this is my body and blood - do this in remembrance of me" etc. was Him handing to them bread and wine that had been changed into His liver, heart, hair, toes, legs, and blood.

People who believe that He was just giving them symbols to do in "remembrance" of Him are the ones thinking logically and literally about what He was doing at the last supper and what we are in turn doing at the communion table.

well, on the notion of "doctrines of men" and "Sola Scriptura"... Revelations does not state when it was written.

It's not impossible that Revelations was revealed to John, exiled to Patmos, after surviving being thrown in boiling oil, during the persecutions of Nero -- who blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD -- around the time when St. Paul was beheaded and St. Peter was crucified upside down.

Caesar Nero = 666 = 6th head "who is" [at the time when Revelation was written]

Tangentially, Church Tradition holds that St. Peter was martyred in 67 AD... but Nero's persecutions began in 64 AD, soon after the fire... Perhaps Nero persecuted the Christian "rank & file" first, retaining the "pillars of the Church" to witness & perhaps recant? Nero's wrath seems to have turned towards the non-Christian Jews in 65 AD, leading to the Jewish war of 67-73 AD.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'm sorry - but all of the tribes of the earth simply have not seen the sign of the Son of Man in the sky and witnessed Him come in great glory during this church age.

They certainly didn't see it "immediately after" 70 A.D.

Actually - according to what you are trying to make it mean concerning the Kingdom - perhaps millions and certainly thousands saw it "before" 70 A.D.

Again - you can stretch things to fit anywhere you want if you have an eschatological agenda. But it's not the natural reading of things.

2 Pet 3, the LORD's work is not slow in coming, 1 Biblical day = 1000 years...

Historically soon after 70 AD, in 312 AD, Constantine saw exactly that... the Sign of the Cross in the sky high above Milvian Bridge, at which Christians won their freedom of Religion

 

[Kenny'sID]

None huh?
Interesting.

"Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." Revelation 3:10

And where does it say he's going to fly them out of there just before the Trib?

 

[gordonhooker]

I ruptured the tyre on my boat trailer once does that count?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then reject the teachings of Luther and the reformers and return to the Roman Catholicism of yesteryear.

If I believed that Luther and the reformers were introducing new doctrines which were never believed before, I wouldn't be a Lutheran.

Show what must take place after the things which John was shown in around 90 A.D. cannot possibly have meant what happened in 70 A.D. some 20 years before - as those here have been saying.

Not what I've been saying, however.

Yours is the far fetched doctrine. It is IMO so far more far fetched than the rapture that it can't even be compared to it as a stretch of what the scriptures really teach.

Nor is it in the slightest bit an "amusing" heresy as most of us see it. It is heresy in the highest degree.

It is those who believe in the literal body and blood in the Eucharist who are rejecting what was logically and literally true about the elements given to the Apostles at the last supper.

It is people like you who are saying that the bread and wine the Lord handed to the disciples (with His own hands) when He said "this is my body and blood - do this in remembrance of me" etc. was Him handing to them bread and wine that had been changed into His liver, heart, hair, toes, legs, and blood.

People who believe that He was just giving them symbols to do in "remembrance" of Him are the ones thinking logically and literally about what He was doing at the last supper and what we are in turn doing at the communion table.

Got it, I'm supposed to believe something Scripture never says and which was never believed because a couple people two hundred years ago made it up. But I'm not supposed to believe what Scripture explicitly and unambiguously says and what has been believed for two thousand years because you don't like it.

I can point to Scripture to defend these things, and I can point to the historic, continued belief of the Christian Church right from the beginning until the present day. You can't say the same thing about the rapture, instead you have to add things to Scripture which simply aren't there in the text, make vague statements about Christians believing in the rapture before Darby without any substance to back that claim up, and then fall back on a fail-safe that it doesn't matter what has been believed since the beginning since we can have new revelation and new doctrines today.

Rapturism is indefensible. If the best that can be offered in defense of it is vague and baseless claims, gross eisegesis, and ad hominem attacks then calling it indefensible is the nicest thing that can be said about it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marvin Knox]

Got it, I'm supposed to believe something Scripture never says and which was never believed because a couple people two hundred years ago made it up. But I'm not supposed to believe what Scripture explicitly and unambiguously says and what has been believed for two thousand years because you don't like it.

"Unambiguously says"? Really?

You actually believe the scriptures clearly teach that - when the man Jesus handed bread and wine to His disciples and said "this is my body" and "this is my blood"- He was literally handing them parts of His body and cups of His blood and doing so with real incarnate hands of flesh infused with veins full of His real life supporting blood?

You think being literal means believing things like that?

I don't care how many people in the early church or how many people in the present church teach such things. The idea that Jesus meant us to believe such a thing when He said "do this in remembrance of me" is preposterous at the least and is in reality also heretical teaching which denies the real and normal humanity of Jesus before His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and glorification.

Rapturism is indefensible. If the best that can be offered in defense of it is vague and baseless claims, gross eisegesis, and ad hominem attacks then calling it indefensible is the nicest thing that can be said about it.

Get a life. Or maybe borrow one of my dozen or so books on the subject.

Entire books with systematic support from scripture have been written on the subject and lectures in seminaries across the world have presented the concepts involved while fielding all questions asked about it's scriptural support. Not to mention open theological debates on the subject around the world.

But you obviously prefer to present the old Darby and Scofield red herrings and expect people who have thought it through for themselves many times over decades of teaching theology to grovel and change their minds on the subject.

 

[Marvin Knox]

And where does it say he's going to fly them out of there just before the Trib?

Nowhere in scripture does it say exactly what you indicate that I said it said.

You said there were no tickets offered the church to escape the tribulation and I refuted it with scripture.

Next you'll be asking me where exactly it says that God is Trinity.

What a lame way of coming back on what was obviously a successful refutation of what you said.

I won't play your silly "show me where it say that" games. Been there and done that with many people on many subjects.

 

[Marvin Knox]

well, after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Herodian Temple in 70 AD (=Rev 18), the Christian victory under Constantine, Theodosius & Justinian (=Rev 19) gathered together all the disparate Christian communities across the then-known world into a united Orthodox Catholic Church, all agreeing on fundamental doctrines, creeds, etc. which remained universally accepted for the next thousand years (=Rev 20)

well, on the notion of "doctrines of men" and "Sola Scriptura"... Revelations does not state when it was written.
It's not impossible that Revelations was revealed to John, exiled to Patmos, after surviving being thrown in boiling oil, during the persecutions of Nero -- who blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD -- around the time when St. Paul was beheaded and St. Peter was crucified upside down.
Caesar Nero = 666 = 6th head "who is" [at the time when Revelation was written]

2 Pet 3, the LORD's work is not slow in coming, 1 Biblical day = 1000 years...
Historically soon after 70 AD, in 312 AD, Constantine saw exactly that... the Sign of the Cross in the sky high above Milvian Bridge, at which Christians won their freedom of Religion

I really don't know what to say.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That is a separate issue. The Tribulation is NOT for the Church, and here's the reason why: For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 5:9).

The Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are both expressions of God's wrath against the unbelieving, ungodly and the wicked. The Church -- the children of God -- are not subject to wrath. There will be Tribulation Saints (subsequent to the Rapture of the Church) who will be persecuted and martyred.

Romans 1:18, "the Wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness"

Christians don't suppress the Truth.

Christians never receive Wrath.

Tribulation is not Wrath, it is persecution that is testing / trying / purifying. In the early Church era, Christians were frequently persecuted. They suffered lots of Tribulation, even unto martyrdom, as many of the Apostles themselves! Salvation is spiritual, not always physical, according to Scripture. Martyrs are raised up as Saints in the Millennium (Rev 20:4-6). They obviously suffered Tribulation.

If St. Peter, St. Paul and many other early Church Fathers & Saints suffered Tribulations... why would Christians today now be immune ?

 

[seventysevens]

The problem is, that I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to your claim that the early Church believed in the Rapture. I have not made claims either way on the subject as a whole- I responded to your statement about the early church which I believe has no evidence to back it up.

Paul taught it - do you think Paul was not part of the early church ?
Jesus said he would do it - you do not believe Him , but you offer no info on what you say

 

[seventysevens]

Sorry. I'll go "get educated"

You do that

 

[seventysevens]

Guess it's a good thing I never said that then did I? If I did please find where I did. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth and bearing false witness.

Simple common sense point - If you have no info to provide to answer the OP question then why are you trying to ague a point that you know nothing about , you be arguing just to be arguing even though you know nothing about what you are arguing about ,

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nowhere in scripture does it say exactly what you indicate that I said it said.

You said there were no tickets offered the church to escape the tribulation and I refuted it with scripture.

Next you'll be asking me where exactly it says that God is Trinity.

What a lame way of coming back on what was obviously a successful refutation of what you said.

I won't play your silly "show me where it say that" games. Been there and done that with many people on many subjects.

Yeah , how silly of me to ask for proof...I should just believe any man made silliness without question.

IOW, you got nothing to back up your claim? and no, I'm not plying your game where you never claimed what I said you did...when you replied to what you did, you made the claim....see how that works?

No, don't have to worry about my asking proof of Trinity, there is a reason there isn't any. Just as the rapture, I don't think you can show me scripture to prove any man made/non biblical claims.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Get a life. Or maybe borrow one of my dozen or so books on the subject.

That explains a lot.

Still, no reason to take disagreement personally...I would think you would know by now there are plenty of us who don't believe there is a thing to the Rapture claim, and be used to the fact. Then you yourself won't bother to prove it's biblical...so what are we supposed to think?

 

[Marvin Knox]

No, don't have to worry about my asking proof of Trinity, there is a reason there isn't any. Just as the rapture, I don't think you can show me scripture to prove any man made/non biblical claims.

There we go then. That explain a lot as well.

Everyone can see now that it isn't just that you don't happen to believe in the rapture as often taught.

You also deny the Trinity. You are a heretic in opposition to the statement of faith in this forum.

It's impossible to have a discussion on the meaning of the scriptures intended by the Holy Spirit with someone who does not believe the scriptures or the God of the Bible.

...I would think you would know by now there are plenty of us who don't believe there is a thing to the Rapture claim, and be used to the fact. Then you yourself won't bother to prove it's biblical...so what are we supposed to think?

I do know that this forum is a format for heretical teachings and false gospels to be promoted. They'll have a lot to answer for at the judgment seat IMO.

You are a heretic who is only allowed to post in this portion of the forum where you can believe and teach anything you want.

Go for it. Just don't expect me to give you a format any longer.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Paul taught it - do you think Paul was not part of the early church ?
Jesus said he would do it - you do not believe Him , but you offer no info on what you say

Simple common sense point - If you have no info to provide to answer the OP question then why are you trying to ague a point that you know nothing about , you be arguing just to be arguing even though you know nothing about what you are arguing about,

Paul taught it? Where is your verse?

I told you I don't believe the early church believed in the rapture, which is what you said. Stop trying to make it about the OP when you know this is a different discussion.

Yes you can say I don't know what I'm talking about all you want, but the simple fact is you still can't provide a quote or even a verse to prove your opinion, which is what I am questioning. I am questioning the existence of your belief in a certain time period. I don't need evidence for that, because your belief didn't exist in the early church. Otherwise prove it.

But you won't. Instead you insist on ad hominem attacks on my, and trying to change the subject.

 

[☦Marius☦]

There we go then. That explain a lot as well.

Everyone can see now that it isn't just that you don't happen to believe in the rapture as often taught.

You also deny the Trinity. You are a heretic in opposition to the statement of faith in this forum.

It's impossible to have a discussion on the meaning of the scriptures intended by the Holy Spirit with someone who does not believe the scriptures or the God of the Bible.

I do know that this forum is a format for heretical teachings and false gospels to be promoted. They'll have a lot to answer for at the judgment seat IMO.

You are a heretic who is only allowed to post in this portion of the forum where you can believe and teach anything you want.

Go for it. Just don't expect me to give you a format any longer.

He didn't deny the Trinity (from what I saw), he just said it isn't directly taught in scripture.

The modern idea of the Trinity didn't exist until the first Ecumenical council of nicea. Look up the Arian heresy, as well as docetism, gnosticism, and any other early church heresy.

That doesn't mean the Trinity is a false doctrine, because the apostolic councils are authoritative in their interpretation of scripture. Just don't act like there was a concensus on the matter before 450AD.

Also

You calling him a heretic, and refusing to respond to his actual point is just another example of ad hominem fallacy.

You don't actually have a response to his point so you attack him personally.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There we go then. That explain a lot as well.

Everyone can see now that it isn't just that you don't happen to believe in the rapture as often taught.

You also deny the Trinity. You are a heretic in opposition to the statement of faith in this forum.

It's impossible to have a discussion on the meaning of the scriptures intended by the Holy Spirit with someone who does not believe the scriptures or the God of the Bible.

I do know that this forum is a format for heretical teachings and false gospels to be promoted. They'll have a lot to answer for at the judgment seat IMO.

You are a heretic who is only allowed to post in this portion of the forum where you can believe and teach anything you want.

Are you not teaching anything you want? Well, of course you are, and the following covers the rest of what I wanted to say (thanks BTW).

Also

You calling him a heretic, and refusing to respond to his actual point is just another example of ad hominem fallacy.

You don't actually have a response to his point so you attack him personally.

Go for it. Just don't expect me to give you a format any longer.

Not to worry, I've known for sometime you have no answer?