Rapture?

genez said:

.[/font]

It should speak for itself. And, as you well know. One can be speaking the absolute truth and another will not understand it.



One verse? And? If I do? What then? Forget my answer and move over to another "what if?" question?

For what good it will do, I do not know. But here is one verse.....

Revelation 2:26 niv
To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."





Did you White Out, Revelation 2:26, from your Bible?

In Christ, GeneZ

Click to expand...

And again I ask...
...show me ANY VERSES AT ALL, that are obviously after the second coming, and tell us that we will be judging, sitting on thrones, or with Christ here on earth at that time.

I see no judging, no sitting, no thrones. We know these things will occur during the mellinnium now show me a single verse that confirms your timing with these known events.

There is no scripture in the Bible that tells us that the righteous will "rule" anyone during the millennium.
There is scripture that tells us we will live and "reign"[936] WITH Christ for 1000 years.
And there is scripture that states; Christ will "rule"[4165] the nations with a rod of iron at His second coming.

But, there are many things one should consider when trying to compare the two.
1. The timing of "rule".(Rev.19)
Pre-mill event that occurs at the coming of Christ/Armageddon.
2. The word "rule" actually means to "feed".(even more specifically feed cattle)
Strong's[4165]
3. The word "nations" actually is called "Gentiles", the majority of the times it was used in the Bible.
Strong's[1484]
The question shouldn't be, "Who shall we rule?"
Instead it should be, "What exactly is this pre-millennial event“?
_______
_______
Again, a firm understanding, of the context and the terms used, can alleviate any doubts.
First, let discuss the word "ethnos", from which we get this word "nations",(Rev.19:15).
This word is used to refer to a particular group. Much as we use the words "them" and "they". It can be referring to just about any kind of grouping of like people. Even though this word is translated as gentiles and nations, by definition it means neither. It simply means a group of people that share common characteristics. For example, "hippies" and "Russians" have their own grouping(ethnos).
The problem we see is that people have gone beyond the definition and even the context and are blinded by a familiar English word which they refuse to see as anything other than what it reads. In this case some read the word "nations" and apply a very modern and rigid definition based solely on how we use that English word.
The English word "nations" implies an empire of a formal and political nature. But that is not what ethnos means at all. It can be used to refer to someone from a specific country, or it can also be used to refer to someone with a specific religion or even a certain disease.
When the word ethnos is used in Rev. 19:15, we must examine it in context to see the particular group that is being spoken of.
Let's see what kind of characteristics these ethnos are described as having....
Christ comes to make war with them(v.11).
His initial attack smites them with His sword, feeds them a rod of iron and He treadeth them in His fierce wrath(v.15).
The fowl of the earth are called to feed on their flesh(v.17).
They are called, kings, mighty men, captains, all men, both free and bond, both small and great(v.18).
They are the ones who gather to make battle against Christ and His armies(v.19).
The remnant of this ethnos was slain with the sword and their flesh was eaten by the fowl(v.21).
________
________
This may sound fundamental, but these folks are obviously the "bad guys". It appears that these are all the wicked that are alive at the time of His advent. They're simply a group of the bad (ethnos)kind of people. Unbelievers, wicked, tares, goats, etc...
_________
_________
Now lets' move on to the phrase "rule them with a rod of iron". As mentioned earlier this word that we translated as "rule" comes from the Greek word "poimaino". It's primary definition and translation is to "feed". It was commonly used to mean to tend or keep a flock like a shepherd might and this is where the connotation of ruling comes from.
We've already seen above that these people are smited with a sword, slain with a sword, flesh is eaten by the birds, and tread upon in His fierce wrath.
That all by itself doesn't sound too hopeful for survivors, does it? Now that we have seen the context of who they are and what their fate is, let's compare a little scripture just to make sure this word "rule/feed" doesn't throw us off.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt BREAK them with a ROD OF IRON; thou shalt dash them in pieces
like a potter's vessel.
Rev 2:27 And HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON; as the vessels of a potter shall they be BROKEN to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
We see that elsewhere in Rev. and in Psa. it specifically mentions the rod of iron as well. Again the implication is clear, it is a violent act. Those verses tell us that this ruling with a rod of iron causes them to be broken and dashed to pieces like a potters vessel.
John clearly tells us in Rev. 2:27 that this "rule with a rod of iron" causes them to "be broken to shivers"
Since we see this mention of the rod associated with the Lord's wrath in Rev. 19:15, these also shed some light as to usage.
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he JUDGE the poor, and reprove with equity for
the meek of the earth: and he shall SMITE the EARTH with the ROD OF HIS MOUTH, and with the breath of his lips shall he SLAY THE WICKED.
Lam 3:1 I [am] the man [that] hath seen affliction by the ROD OF HIS WRATH.
Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, THE ROD OF MINE ANGER, and the staff in their hand is mine
indignation.
According to Rev. 19 and other directly comparative scripture, let's see what we've come up with.

This (ethnos)group of bad people are...
smited with a sword
slain with a sword
flesh is eaten by the birds
tread upon in His fierce wrath
broken and dashed to pieces
ruled with a rod of iron
John is quite clear about the affect of this iron rod, it brakes them to shivers, and it is not some form of governing. It is the first death! And nowhere does he ever even hint that this event continues into the millennial period of judgment.

Ontheway said:

This is where we get into the silliness of protestant literalist interpretation. Once again, the doctrine of the rapture was made up by a woman in Scotland. The Church has always understood that verse, in context with the rest of Scripture, in a correct litteral (not litteralist) meaning. The idea of creating something like that based on a piece of one verse, removed completely from context, is pretty much the path to hell.

Click to expand...

I dont think repeating bad information and heavily long debunked information is a good path either . Margaret Mcdonald stories still circulate sadly amoung the misinformed when she certainly isnt thre originator of the rapture teachings. Christ and paul were and then there were others in the early church :

Luke 21: 34. "But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly.
35. "For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36. "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.''

Jesus also said said in Matthew 24:44 "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. The only time frame I can think of when we believers would not be expecting Jesus to return would have to be before the tribulation. If in the middle or the end , then we would know the time of His return.

I believe Jesus was the originator . Then Paul told about it . Those verses have already been cited throughout this thread .

Now about later proponents who taught it and the Margaret Mcdonald myth :

John L. Bray, a Southern Baptist evangelist, offered $500 to anyone who could prove that someone taught the rapture doctrine prior to MacDonald's 1830 vision. Bray was first proven wrong when he wrote in a newsletter, "Then my own research indicated that it was Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Catholic priest, who in the 1812 book The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, first taught this theory." Bray stuck his neck out again when he made another $500 offer to anyone who could provide a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's 1812 writings. Apparently he had to cough up the 500 bucks. I quote him again: "I offered $500 to anyone who would give a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's time which taught a two-stage coming of Christ separated by a stated period of time.” No one claimed that offer until someone found writings that forced Bray to write the following: “Now I have the Photostat copies of a book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1788 but written in 1742-1744 in England, which taught the pretribulation rapture before Lacunza."

Then we have this from the very early church :

Epharaem the Syrian (church Father) said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

Christ is a wonderful groom , He will remove His bride before the bad stuff hits the fan , He doesnt intend to drag her through the mud before the wedding . She will be tucked safely away in the Fathers house - look up the jewish wedding customs .

The tribulation is the time of Jacobs trouble intended to bring a non believing israel back to God - its not for the church - revelation says that satan will overcome the saints , but elsewhere it says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church - because the church wont be here during the tribulation .

God bless .

adam332 said:

And again I ask...
...show me ANY VERSES AT ALL, that are obviously after the second coming, and tell us that we will be judging, sitting on thrones, or with Christ here on earth at that time.

I see no judging, no sitting, no thrones.

Click to expand...

Probably there is a reason you can't see that.


Grace and peace..... and have a nice Day, GeneZ

Angel4Truth said:

Epharaem the Syrian (church Father) said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

Click to expand...

That's a keeper. On file in my Documents.

And, I found this additional information to verify its source:

This text was originally a sermon called On the Last Times, the Anti-christ, and the End of the World. There are four existing Latin manuscripts (the Parisinus, the Augiensis, the Barberini, and the St. Gallen) ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore . Some scholars believe this text was written by some unknown writer in the sixth century and was derived from the original Ephraem.4 The sermon describes the events of the last days, beginning with the rapture, the Great Tribulation of 3 1/2 years duration under the Antichrist's rule, followed by the Second Coming of Christ. In Ephraem's book The Book of the Cave of Treasures, written about 370 A.D., he expressed his belief that the 69th week of Daniel ended with the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah.5 ( http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/39/ )

Click to expand...

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Genez,

I have asked you the same question 2 or 3 times and you refuse to show me. I am willing to forgo all other areas of difference with you, if you just sit down and reason this one area out with me. Okay.

There is only one clear passage that we can all agree that the events are during the mellinnium, right?

Rev. 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

But, this single passage doesn't mention WHERE these events and images will be. It only gives us the timing;which is immediately following the advent and the resurrection of the saints, right?

So, in order to accurately discern other passages that are referring to the same 1000 yrs, one must track what we do know, right?

Ok, now please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "sitting"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, on/around "thrones"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "judging"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "reigning"? *

* [And remember; "ruling" with the rod of iron, is shown multiple times, in the Bible, to be the destruction of the wicked at armageddon, and is never associated with saints sitting on thrones judging. Nor is there any indication that event continues after the advent.]

You sound so strong about your conviction in this area that you surely must have tried to track the images and events that are found in the ONLY sure and clear passage, right?

I've showed you my evidence.... and the images and timing are accurate, and 3 of them clearly tell us "where", and a fourth passage I've shown infers "where".

So, this should be reall easy, you don't even have to disprove my passages, just show me yours.

adam332 said:

Genez,

I have asked you the same question 2 or 3 times and you refuse to show me. I am willing to forgo all other areas of difference with you, if you just sit down and reason this one area out with me. Okay.

There is only one clear passage that we can all agree that the events are during the mellinnium, right?

Rev. 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

But, this single passage doesn't mention WHERE these events and images will be. It only gives us the timing;which is immediately following the advent and the resurrection of the saints, right?

So, in order to accurately discern other passages that are referring to the same 1000 yrs, one must track what we do know, right?

Ok, now please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "sitting"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, on/around "thrones"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "judging"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "reigning"? *

* [And remember; "ruling" with the rod of iron, is shown multiple times, in the Bible, to be the destruction of the wicked at armageddon, and is never associated with saints sitting on thrones judging. Nor is there any indication that event continues after the advent.]

You sound so strong about your conviction in this area that you surely must have tried to track the images and events that are found in the ONLY sure and clear passage, right?

I've showed you my evidence.... and the images and timing are accurate, and 3 of them clearly tell us "where", and a fourth passage I've shown infers "where".

So, this should be reall easy, you don't even have to disprove my passages, just show me yours.

Click to expand...

May I ask some questions to clarify what I think is in your mind?

It seems to me the picture you have is the Church continuing on through the Tribulation until Christ returns. Then, when He comes, He slays all the wicked, the earth is a "dust ball", the saints (Church) is resurrected and taken to heaven where we reign with Him for a thousand years.

Am I hearing right so far?

peace

sawdust said:

May I ask some questions to clarify what I think is in your mind?

It seems to me the picture you have is the Church continuing on through the Tribulation until Christ returns. Then, when He comes, He slays all the wicked, the earth is a "dust ball", the saints (Church) is resurrected and taken to heaven where we reign with Him for a thousand years.

Am I hearing right so far?

peace

Click to expand...

Yes. That is it in a nutshell.

Keep in mind ....that even though we are suffering tribulation at the hands of the wicked, we will not be suffering from's God's wrath, which will be occuring simultaneously.

adam332 said:

Yes. That is it in a nutshell.

Keep in mind ....that even though we are suffering tribulation at the hands of the wicked, we will not be suffering from's God's wrath, which will be occuring simultaneously.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks. Some questions...

So when exactly do the meek inherit the earth?

And why are we only reigning for a thousand years?

What's left to judge of the world if Christ has sent all the bad guys packing?

And what's left to judge in heaven if Satan and his cronies are in the pit?

If all believers are going to live and reign in heaven, why does God bother making a new earth? (We really only need a new heaven.)

The new earth is called the "home of righteousness". (2Pet.3:13) So who's home is this? Our home is heaven. If the Lord intended we were all bound for duel citizenship, how come He never said so? (it's not a hard concept to understand)

Hmmm. I have a lot more questions but I think I better stop.

peace

sawdust said:

Ok thanks. Some questions...

So when exactly do the meek inherit the earth?

Click to expand...

That would be after the second death. The end of all soorrow, sin, tears, death, etc...

And why are we only reigning for a thousand years? What's left to judge of the world if Christ has sent all the bad guys packing? And what's left to judge in heaven if Satan and his cronies are in the pit?

Click to expand...

This appears to be a more solemn period than the New heavens and new earth. It is a time we are judging WITH CHRIST and sitting on thrones as priests. There will suredly be questions about salvation. Do we not wonder who we will see in heaven? How much more will we wonder, when we're there? What questions will we want answered?

What if you were Stephen and the last thing you remembered before your martyrdom was Paul approving it?! Then you are raised up with the saints and you see Paul, are there any questions you think you may have?

What about your children, spouse, parents, siblings, friends, popes, etc... All the righteous that ever live will be glorified and imparted with a greater understanding but will not have had access to the judgement books to see "why" they are there.... and others aren't.

Notice in the passages that follow the mention of the mellinnium, suddenly there is mentions of the book of life being opened and the wicked are judged from it.
Rev. 20:12, 15. Immediately prior to this the saints themselves sat in judgement with Christ for an entire mellinnia.

It appears that the second death will not occur until all the righteous are in agreement/satisfied with the judgement. Keep in mind that it says we will judge with christ for a thousand yrs.

I think you may have seen me post to genez all the passages I can find that are contextually referring to the mellinnium. There is quite a lack of confirmable data, but from what I can find that is my best guess. I got the where, what, who, and when....but the scripture I see is just not clear on the "why"?

If all believers are going to live and reign in heaven, why does God bother making a new earth? (We really only need a new heaven.)

The new earth is called the "home of righteousness". (2Pet.3:13) So who's home is this? Our home is heaven. If the Lord intended we were all bound for duel citizenship, how come He never said so? (it's not a hard concept to understand)

Click to expand...

It says we are there for only a thousand yrs., 2Peter also implies it will be like a "day" to us. John envisions the city setting down upon the earth after the mellinnium. Then he sees a new heaven and new earth.

Isaiah indicates that in the new heavens and earth that all flesh shall come to the city to worship. Is this the new earth... an eden recreated with new jerusalem as it's capital? It sure seems that way from the scripture we have.

Tonks said:

Not in the silly "Left Behind" sense if that is what you are asking - the idea is so far outside the bounds of orthodoxy that one cannot even see it.

Click to expand...

I am interested to know what you do believe and would be greatful if you could share it with us.

I believe we would be seeing each other in Heaven and learning what we can from our brothers and sisters only helps to enlighten us all.

I will not debate your thoughts on the matter, I would simply like to know.

Inviolable said:

I am interested to know what you do believe and would be greatful if you could share it with us.

I believe we would be seeing each other in Heaven and learning what we can from our brothers and sisters only helps to enlighten us all.

I will not debate your thoughts on the matter, I would simply like to know.

Click to expand...

Of course - happy to share.

We do not subscribe to a physical "Rapture" as commonly proposed, for there is no real biblical support for such an expectation of a physical disappearance of Christians while the world continues on for an extended period with the unredeemed living on in mortal existence. Biblical texts which some claim support a Rapture are interpreted by the Catholic Church as referring to end times, in which those who are saved are described as "taken" or "caught up" to the Lord, whereas the damned are left behind, that is, they are not brought into the presence of God.

With regards to a literal physical thousand year reign of Christ here on earth, the Catholic Church formally rejects this. When Christ returns, it will be for the final coming and we must not expect some physical earthly rule prior to that. Those who subscribe to a literal reign of Christ here on earth make the same mistake as many Jews in the time of Christ, who expected a Kingdom established here on earth. The Kingdom is here insofar as the Church is present in the world. As to the binding of Satan, there is debate on this point. We tend toward the position of St. Augustine, who views the thousand-year binding as the extended life of the Church here in this world, from the First Coming of Christ to the Second Coming.

As the Creed infallibly teaches, the Second Coming is associated with the end of the world and the Last Judgement. Therefore, it is NOT associated with any earlier time - such as to establish a "Millenium." The Catholic Church specifically condemns "millenarianism," according to which Jesus will establish a throne in this world and reign here for a thousand years [CCC 676]. She teaches instead that Jesus already reigns in eternity (1 Cor. 15:24-27, Rev. 4 & 5) and that in this world His reign, established as a seed, is found already in the Church [CCC 668-669]. This is the 1000 years, which is the Hebrew way of indicating an indefinite long time - in this case, the time between the first and second comings, the era of the Church, in other words the last days in the broadest sense.The Book of Revelation situates this era between the persecutions of the Roman antichrists of the first century and the final unleashing of evil at the end.

The notion that Jesus will come, reign, and then depart, so that the devil can trick the world again, is incompatible with the incomprehensible dignity of the Lord and His love for His people. Jesus' Coming will be definitive, triumphant and ever-lasting, NOT temporal and limited.

As for the Rapture, the meaning of 1 Thes 4:15-17 is that at the return of Christ (v.15) and the General Resurrection of the Dead (v.16), those who survive the persecution of the Antichrist will have no advantage in being resurrected over those who died before His Coming [CCC 1001]. All will go to meet Him and be with Him forever (v.17; cf. Rev 20:17-21:27).

Tonks said:

The notion that Jesus will come, reign, and then depart, so that the devil can trick the world again, is incompatible with the incomprehensible dignity of the Lord and His love for His people. Jesus' Coming will be definitive, triumphant and ever-lasting, NOT temporal and limited.

Click to expand...

Oh No! Third time!

I'm a Tonkian.

Lutherans pretty much agree with the Catholics on this.

I subscribe to a particularly catastrophic version of amillennialism.

adam332 said:

Genez,

I have asked you the same question 2 or 3 times and you refuse to show me. I am willing to forgo all other areas of difference with you, if you just sit down and reason this one area out with me. Okay.

Click to expand...

Not when you blitz with a preponderance of continuous verses that would require more than just stating them, with the presumption that they are self evidently in your favor.

There is only one clear passage that we can all agree that the events are during the mellinnium, right?

Click to expand...

I don't know. We think nothing alike.

Rev. 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

But, this single passage doesn't mention WHERE these events and images will be. It only gives us the timing;which is immediately following the advent and the resurrection of the saints, right?

So, in order to accurately discern other passages that are referring to the same 1000 yrs, one must track what we do know, right?

Ok, now please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "sitting"?

Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything? The first resurrection does not take place at the Advent.

There
Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, on/around "thrones"?

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "judging"?

Click to expand...

You're off on a false premise. I have no idea what you are trying to get at. As if I believe that were so.

Now, please show me any passage or verse that shows the saints, immediately after the advent, "reigning"? *

Click to expand...

We have a promise.

Revelation 2:26 niv
To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."

* [And remember; "ruling" with the rod of iron, is shown multiple times, in the Bible, to be the destruction of the wicked at armageddon, and is never associated with saints sitting on thrones judging. Nor is there any indication that event continues after the advent.]

Click to expand...

You confuse "ruling," with "judging." Does a judge rule those in his court? Yet, we will have the authority to be judges over others, as well. That comes with the authority. Kings used to judge over all sorts of matters with his people.


I think the key to this whole matter breaks down into the last sentence of that passage.

You sound so strong about your conviction in this area that you surely must have tried to track the images and events that are found in the ONLY sure and clear passage, right?

Click to expand...

You should hear it in the Greek, sir. You will learn something about time placement if you do.

I've showed you my evidence.... and the images and timing are accurate, and 3 of them clearly tell us "where", and a fourth passage I've shown infers "where".

Click to expand...

According to your standards. It still leaves many lose ends dangling behind your back.

So, this should be reall easy, you don't even have to disprove my passages, just show me yours.

Click to expand...

Disprove your passages? You simply quote passages , one after another, and give no exegesis? What am I supposed to do? Sit there? And, say? "Very nice?"

Trouble is, your are attacking things that you assume I believe, and I sit here wondering who in the past you have argued that point with, and assume I am thinking just like him. That's what I get. I am lost at your points, for they do not address what I believe. You only assume they do.

Revelation 20:2-4 (New International Version)

"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

These beheaded did not worship the Beast (7 year Tribulation). After that, they are resurrected and reign for a thousand years. Those (souls) who are to judge were already in position for their authority. They are Church age believers of a different dispensation. Tribulation saints and Church age saints are not the same dispensation. Tribulation saints will not be judges, only Church age saints will.

1 Corinthians 6:2 niv
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

I think its a matter of your rejection of dispensations which is the root of your dogmatic confusion.

...oh well....
Grace and peace, GeneZ

Melethiel said:

Lutherans pretty much agree with the Catholics on this.

Click to expand...

I do as well. But then I have been accused of being a crypto-Lutheran.

I guess I should have noted that while Catholics have seemingly dogmatized everything under the sun there is relatively little - if any - official teaching of the "end times." Other that what I posted above the Church is fairly silent on the matter.

It is her view, I believe, that Christians be ready and prepare themselves accordingly for we know not day or hour....

Melethiel said:

Lutherans pretty much agree with the Catholics on this.

Click to expand...

Not this Lutheran.

This Lutheran believes in an upcoming Millenium and he also believes that there is not one verse that proves the pre-tribulational rapture.

The rapture will be later on in the Tribulation.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial said:

Not this Lutheran.

This Lutheran believes in an upcoming Millenium and he also believes that there is not one verse that proves the pre-tribulational rapture.

The rapture will be later on in the Tribulation.

Thanks,
Ed

Click to expand...

That's why I wrote "pretty much". Since amilleniasm is the majority view in the Lutheran church, and official in the LCMS.

Edial said:

Not this Lutheran.

This Lutheran believes in an upcoming Millenium and he also believes that there is not one verse that proves the pre-tribulational rapture.

The rapture will be later on in the Tribulation.

Thanks,
Ed

Click to expand...

And what is the verse which proves that the rapture is later on in the Tribulation????