- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
This discussion went "off the rails" a long way back, but the engine keeps puffing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This discussion went "off the rails" a long way back, but the engine keeps puffing.
It is plain that the original argument was whether or not an old covenant jew could not live the whole law perfectly and I showed the scriptures and you denied it and brought in other things that didn't line up with the context or the time factor.
staff edit
The theory commonly called "the rapture hoax" for the origins of the pretribulation rapture goes something like this:
1. The idea originated with Immanuel Lacunza, a Roman Catholic Jesuit, who published a book in 1812 (in Spanish) called The Coming of Messiah in Majesty and Glory.
2. Edward Irving, a pioneer to the Catholic Apostolic Church, translated Lacunza's book in the 1820s. The Catholic Apostolic Church held to the reappearance of the supernatural gifts of tongues, healing and prophesying. While they were not founded by Irving, the members were commonly derided as "Irvingites."
3. Margaret MacDonald, an "Irvingite" gave a prophecy during a meeting and said the rapture was pretribulational.
4. Darby, attending this meeting, appropriated the pretribulation rapture as his own idea.
There are insinuations behind this theory, and to interpret those insinuations:
1. When your belief originates from a Roman Catholic, and especially a Spanish Jesuit, it is downright bad.
2. When this bad idea is translated into English by a misguided heretic, and then one of these Irvingites - Margaret MacDonald - utters it in a prophecy, it is even worse.
3. But it wasn't any prophecy, it was a demonic prophecy coming from a 13 year old girl. Most proper Christians would never touch that with a 10 foot pole, but not Darby.
4. Darby, who obviously couldn't think of something original on his own, decided to plagiarize the idea of a pretribulation rapture. Not just from anybody, but from a 13-year old demonically inspired girl. Bad Darby. Then Darby passed this idea on to the rest of the evangelical world, where most people bought it hook, line and sinker. Very bad Darby. And shame on those who hold to such a demonically inspired doctrine today, because you really should know better.
Now how should dispensationalists respond to this? I really don't think it is very helpful to ask questions such as:
1) Where did Edward Irving learn Spanish?
2) What color was Margaret's hair when she uttered the prophecy?
3) Was Darby really that bad at creating ideas and that great of a marketing expert?
4) Seriously, a demonically inspired 13 year old girl???
What might be helpful though is to ask whether the idea of a pretribulation rapture has been taught before Lacunza. That would immediately go to the heart of the matter.
A man named Morgan Edwards, a Baptist who founded Brown University, wrote something interesting. In the 1740s he wrote that 3.5 years before the two witnesses of Rev 11 were to be killed by the Antichrist, that Jesus would appear in the clouds, and that the dead in Christ would be raised and the living caught up to be with Him.
Going further back, written in the 1300s in Latin, is a text called The History of Brother Dolcino. The beliefs of the Apostolic Brethren are described as: after the coming of the Antichrist, believers will be caught up into paradise to be preserved from harm, then Enoch and Elijah would descend to the earth and eventually be killed by the Antichrist, and after the Antichrist is dead the believers would return to earth.
So if the "rapture hoax" theory is to be taken seriously, shoudn't it at least take these two examples into account? And if it can't...or won't...
staff edit.
Daniel 11:11 talks about 1290 days between the time the daily sacrifice is taken away to the point the abomination that causes desolation occur. At that point, Antichrist is here. And, if you remember Christ says to flee to the mountains at this point - at the end of the 1290 when the abomination is set up. This is from Christ Himself Mark 13:14.
Then, Daniel says blessed are those who endure 45 more days (1335 days AFTER the daily sacrifice.)
The hard truth, whether or not anyone is willing to admit it, is that although the Bible very clearly says that the rapture will indeed take place, it simply does not state the timing of that event, in regard to the rest of end time prophecy. Thus all positions on the timing of the rapture are based on interpretations of scripture.
Whether you admit it or not, this is interpretation of scripture, not scripture.The event is described at the end of 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 and the timing of the event is revealed at the beginning of chapter 5, on the day of the Lord, when He comes as a thief.
Based on 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 16:15-16, "the day of the Lord" when He "comes as a thief", is a Second Coming event.
The word "sleep" in the following verse proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that chapter 5 is connected to chapter 4.
1Th 5:10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
One would have to ignore the verse above, to come up with another interpretation of the passage.
.
Whether you admit it or not, this is interpretation of scripture, not scripture.
Now use the fact that we are to be blameless...without offence
....till the day of Christ...till His coming...to prove they are the same
as day of the Lord.
day of Christ...Philippians 1:6.....Philippians 1:10...2 Thessalonians 2
But not even one of these scriptures states whether the rapture is before, during, or after Daniel's seventieth week.
Everyone taking any position in the debate about the timing of the rapture can post plenty of scriptures that can legitimately be interpreted to prove their own opinions. But not even one of these scriptures states whether the rapture is before, during, or after Daniel's seventieth week.
I am absolutely persuaded that there are plenty of scriptures that indicate that the rapture will be before that period. And I am certain that any REAL understanding of end time prophecy is impossible without understanding this. But I am aware that this is interpretation of scripture, and that ALL interpretations of scripture are fallible, because they involve the fallible human mind.
And I clearly see that almost all of the arguments in favor of the post trib rapture involve an outright ASSUMPTION, that the Lord is only returning once. This ASSUMPTION is invalid because there was not even one Old testament scripture that said Messiah would come more that once. But now that we have the New Testament, we KNOW that these Old Testament prophecies spoke of more than a single coming.
Your respose did not even address, much less answer, my obseration.
I think it's quite probable the rapture is what is referenced in Revelation 12 when the child is caught up (harpazo) just as we are told those by Paul concerning those who are caught up (harpazo) with the Lord in 1 Thess 4:17.
I also think since Revelation seems to cover some events multiple times, it's not a single chronology from chapters 4 through 19 but different views of the same timeframe, just as Genesis 2 gives a different view of the creation account in Genesis 1. Also, if you consider the writing style of John in his gospel, he doesn't focus on timelines nearly as much as the other writers, but rather he focuses on accounts of events, and when compared with other gospels, one can see that he didn't write all his accounts in chronological order. He has the birth at the beginning, the death at the end, and then chronology-jumbled accounts in between. It seems to me Revelation is the same way, the beginning were the present day churches, then at the end is the final judgment, and in the middle are various accounts across the same timeline.
Therefore I think it's possible that the Revelation 12 commencing events are not mid-trib, but rather pre-trib. Add that to understanding that the Rev 12 signs appear to be coming upon us this September, I'm really thinking time is also short. Let's just say I'm not all that concerned about the value of my 401k at the moment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?