There is NO rapture!!!

ivebeenshown · Mar 5, 2011

gradyll said:
what is biased?

Want to lol but it hurts too bad.

Walter Kovacs · Mar 5, 2011

i still think left behind is legit

createdtoworship · Mar 5, 2011

Walter Kovacs said:
i still think left behind is legit

it's more than legitimate it's right on the money

Walter Kovacs · Mar 5, 2011

i knew it

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
D,
I've already given you a reply to disprove your false premise, but I'll play your silly game............

My goodness, chalk, just because we disagree on a matter of, frankly, peripheral doctrine, there's no reason to get nasty. It's not like I'm casting doubt on God's existence, or Jesus' divinity, or even the second coming! If this isn't an issue we should be able to debate in a civil manner, than I don't know what is. I would hope neither you, nor any of us here, would regard this as a doctrine crucial to one's salvation.

Rev 11:11

And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12

And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Okay, good. Let's take a look at this. Something I'm sure we can all agree on is, in order to properly read and accurately understand any work of literature, we first have to identify the genre in which it's written. After all, we don't read poetry the same way we read a newspaper article, which is different from the way we read a novel of fiction, which is different than the way we read a 'How to' manual from the hardware store, etc. This is relatively easy for us when we're reading literature with which we're familiar; something in our language, by an author who shares our culture, is roughly from the same time period, and so on. Naturally, the further away we get from the 'familiar' the more difficult this can prove to be. The fact is, the Bible was composed thousands of years ago, in completely different languages (especially in the case of Hebrew), from a completely alien cultural perspective, and in several different genres, some of which we're relatively familiar with and others we're not.

Among the vital factors which determine how one should read Revelation is naturally the literary genre in which it is written. In fact, the book of Revelation takes the form of three types of genre. It begins by identifying itself as an apocalypse (1.1). It then both begins and ends by designating itself as prophecy (1.3; 22.18-19). Finally, it possesses several of the characteristics typical of a letter, as they appeared in the first-century Greco-Roman world.
An ‘apocalypse’ is so-called as a transliterated Greek term, ἀποκάλυψις[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif], [/FONT]meaning, appropriately enough, ‘a revelation’ or ‘an uncovering’. Thus, it is obviously intended to indicate something as being revealed. Revelation was therefore composed in that which has come to be called by modern scholarship as ‘apocalyptic literature’, and it is this work itself which appears to have given the entire genre its name. As such, at least in its Jewish manifestations, it is a peculiar form of writing that grew out of OT prophetic literature, as especially characterized by the book of Daniel, and is predominantly derived out of times of intense persecution (apocalyptic exists as an identifiable literary genre in other Jewish sources, such as parts of OT books like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and in intertestamental literature, like 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch). Such situations thus appear to have given rise to a type of ‘coded’ response addressing the oppressed people’s sufferings, with the intent of encouraging the faithful until God’s eventual intervention through a messianic agent.
Although apocalyptic literature bears certain distinct identifying characteristics, it would be only slight exaggeration to say that no two scholars of the genre would agree on all of them. With that caveat in mind, an apocalypse is a planned, carefully structured literary work, formally stylized with neatly divided epochs of time, and the utilization of deliberate, thoughtful symbolism (e.g., numbers, especially sevens and their multiples, standing for completeness or perfection, and twelves and their multiples, symbolizing the People of God, based on the twelve tribes of Israel) and cryptic language based on common conventions. It is typically couched in the context of a vision and a heavenly journey, where the seer is often led by an otherworldly figure, intended to reveal to the reader what is really happening behind our dimension of reality. Additionally, apocalyptic dwells within the realm of the fantastic—never intended to be literal (e.g., a pregnant woman clothed with the sun with the moon at her feet and a crown with twelve stars or the multi-mutant beast with ten horns and seven heads). The work is usually pseudonymous, perhaps because it is feared that the author of such a work could be placed in jeopardy if it should fall into the hands of the oppressors. Possibly, this is meant to give the work a sense of greater age, in order to better emphasize that all the events described within were preordained and, therefore, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, fully under God’s control. Finally, it is also characteristic that the work was to have been “sealed up” for a future time, likely in purposeful imitation of Daniel, but perhaps, also, to undergird the sense of age noted above.
The book of Revelation fits all of the above criteria with two significant exceptions: it is neither pseudonymous, with the author boldly identifying himself as ‘John… exiled to the island of Patmos for having proclaimed the message of God and borne witness to Jesus” (1.9; 22.8); nor is it to be sealed up. Quite the opposite; it is expressly stated, “Do not ‘seal up the words of the prophecy of this book’, because the time of their fulfilment is near” (22.10), probably quoting Daniel 12.4 specifically to show the contrast. To John and his intended audience, the time is NOW, not in some distant future. Additionally, to the extent that other apocalyptic writings are not necessarily based on actual visions or revelations experienced by the authors, but are rather a literary device employed for communicating what are otherwise ineffable truths, we take it on faith that Revelation differs by being founded on actual, objective experiences of Christ disclosing himself to John.
Revelation also refers to itself as constituting prophecy. This is significant in that, to his readers, it marks (or is, at least, a part of) a return to Israel’s prophetic past; to a time when God’s Spirit was active among his people. Noteworthy is that OT prophecy is primarily concerned with God’s immediate dealings with Israel, and that only a small proportion actually focused on a distant future. That Revelation is prophecy further indicates that its contents are not to be relegated to some far-flung future period of time; God’s kingly intervention had already begun in Jesus, even if it was also the case that its complete fulfilment had not yet arrived. It should be noted that this was not a time of the quenched Spirit—this is the new Israel—when the Spirit of God has been poured out upon his covenant people (1.10-11; 19-10).
Finally, Revelation is a letter. Since the end is now, and these revelations were not to be sealed up, John writes a letter to the seven churches. As with all of the NT epistles, it is prompted by their immediate circumstances and thus is occasional in nature and is therefore intended to address the specific—even if more widely representative—needs of those churches. This indicates that the most fundamental hermeneutical principle to follow in properly understanding the book is to look for meanings that could have been intelligible to its original recipients, the first-century Christians of Asia Minor, not hidden meanings decipherable only to people living centuries later and half a world away who think that they may be living in the days immediately prior to Christ’s return. From his own contemporary perspective then, the author’s purpose is to write what he has seen: both what is now and what will take place (1.19), and his recipients are to “hear” and to “keep” this word; that is, to remain faithful in spite of what has happened and will happen.
In conclusion, Revelation is apocalyptic; born under suffering it uses symbolism and highly stylized imagery to encourage believers by speaking about the ultimate realities of judgement and salvation. It is prophetic in that it is the word of the Spirit to the present circumstances of God’s people. And it is a letter in that it is occasioned by the specific situations of the churches addressed.

(A more comprehensive and technical definition of the apocalyptic genre is:

"Apocalyptic entails the revelatory communication of heavenly secrets by an otherworldly being to a seer who presents the visions in a narrative framework; the visions guide readers into a transcendent reality, takes precedence over the current situation and encourages readers to persevere in the midst of their trials. The visions reverse normal experience by making the heavenly mysteries the real world and depicting the present crisis as a temporary, illusory situation. This is achieved via God’s transforming the world for the faithful."
See G.R. Osborne, Revelation [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002]: 14.)

There is also the one harvest and two reapings of Rev 14. But how you discount a literal Biblical term such as "harpazo" shows your cynical ignorance of Scripture imo................

2 Peter 2:1

2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,

KJV

Frankie

Again Frankie, there's no need to get nasty. I'm not calling you or anybody else a "false prophet" or " false teacher" just because you're espousing the "damnable heresies" of Futurist eschatology. Seriously, we're just talking here.

CryptoLutheran · Mar 6, 2011

gradyll said:
from rapture forums:

The resurrection of the just will occur in stages, and the stages will correspond with the three stages of a Jewish harvest: the first fruits, followed by the general harvest, and concluded with the gleanings. Jesus was the "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:23). The general harvest will occur at the Rapture when the Church Age saints will be resurrected and the living saints will be translated. The gleanings will occur at the end of the Tribulation at the Second Coming of Jesus. That is when the Old Testament saints and Tribulation martyrs will be resurrected.

I think I'll stick with Scripture and what Christianity has taught for two thousand years.

There's one resurrection of the dead, Christ is the first fruits and the rest at His coming at the end of the age.

-CryptoLutheran

Manasseh_ · Mar 6, 2011

dcyates said:
My goodness, chalk, just because we disagree on a matter of, frankly, peripheral doctrine, there's no reason to get nasty. It's not like I'm casting doubt on God's existence, or Jesus' divinity, or even the second coming! If this isn't an issue we should be able to debate in a civil manner, than I don't know what is. I would hope neither you, nor any of us here, would regard this as a doctrine crucial to one's salvation.

Okay, good. Let's take a look at this. Something I'm sure we can all agree on is, in order to properly read and accurately understand any work of literature, we first have to identify the genre in which it's written. After all, we don't read poetry the same way we read a newspaper article, which is different from the way we read a novel of fiction, which is different than the way we read a 'How to' manual from the hardware store, etc. This is relatively easy for us when we're reading literature with which we're familiar; something in our language, by an author who shares our culture, is roughly from the same time period, and so on. Naturally, the further away we get from the 'familiar' the more difficult this can prove to be. The fact is, the Bible was composed thousands of years ago, in completely different languages (especially in the case of Hebrew), from a completely alien cultural perspective, and in several different genres, some of which we're relatively familiar with and others we're not.

Among the vital factors which determine how one should read Revelation is naturally the literary genre in which it is written. In fact, the book of Revelation takes the form of three types of genre. It begins by identifying itself as an apocalypse (1.1). It then both begins and ends by designating itself as prophecy (1.3; 22.18-19). Finally, it possesses several of the characteristics typical of a letter, as they appeared in the first-century Greco-Roman world.
An ‘apocalypse’ is so-called as a transliterated Greek term, ἀποκάλυψις[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif], [/FONT]meaning, appropriately enough, ‘a revelation’ or ‘an uncovering’. Thus, it is obviously intended to indicate something as being revealed. Revelation was therefore composed in that which has come to be called by modern scholarship as ‘apocalyptic literature’, and it is this work itself which appears to have given the entire genre its name. As such, at least in its Jewish manifestations, it is a peculiar form of writing that grew out of OT prophetic literature, as especially characterized by the book of Daniel, and is predominantly derived out of times of intense persecution (apocalyptic exists as an identifiable literary genre in other Jewish sources, such as parts of OT books like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and in intertestamental literature, like 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch). Such situations thus appear to have given rise to a type of ‘coded’ response addressing the oppressed people’s sufferings, with the intent of encouraging the faithful until God’s eventual intervention through a messianic agent.
Although apocalyptic literature bears certain distinct identifying characteristics, it would be only slight exaggeration to say that no two scholars of the genre would agree on all of them. With that caveat in mind, an apocalypse is a planned, carefully structured literary work, formally stylized with neatly divided epochs of time, and the utilization of deliberate, thoughtful symbolism (e.g., numbers, especially sevens and their multiples, standing for completeness or perfection, and twelves and their multiples, symbolizing the People of God, based on the twelve tribes of Israel) and cryptic language based on common conventions. It is typically couched in the context of a vision and a heavenly journey, where the seer is often led by an otherworldly figure, intended to reveal to the reader what is really happening behind our dimension of reality. Additionally, apocalyptic dwells within the realm of the fantastic—never intended to be literal (e.g., a pregnant woman clothed with the sun with the moon at her feet and a crown with twelve stars or the multi-mutant beast with ten horns and seven heads). The work is usually pseudonymous, perhaps because it is feared that the author of such a work could be placed in jeopardy if it should fall into the hands of the oppressors. Possibly, this is meant to give the work a sense of greater age, in order to better emphasize that all the events described within were preordained and, therefore, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, fully under God’s control. Finally, it is also characteristic that the work was to have been “sealed up” for a future time, likely in purposeful imitation of Daniel, but perhaps, also, to undergird the sense of age noted above.
The book of Revelation fits all of the above criteria with two significant exceptions: it is neither pseudonymous, with the author boldly identifying himself as ‘John… exiled to the island of Patmos for having proclaimed the message of God and borne witness to Jesus” (1.9; 22.8); nor is it to be sealed up. Quite the opposite; it is expressly stated, “Do not ‘seal up the words of the prophecy of this book’, because the time of their fulfilment is near” (22.10), probably quoting Daniel 12.4 specifically to show the contrast. To John and his intended audience, the time is NOW, not in some distant future. Additionally, to the extent that other apocalyptic writings are not necessarily based on actual visions or revelations experienced by the authors, but are rather a literary device employed for communicating what are otherwise ineffable truths, we take it on faith that Revelation differs by being founded on actual, objective experiences of Christ disclosing himself to John.
Revelation also refers to itself as constituting prophecy. This is significant in that, to his readers, it marks (or is, at least, a part of) a return to Israel’s prophetic past; to a time when God’s Spirit was active among his people. Noteworthy is that OT prophecy is primarily concerned with God’s immediate dealings with Israel, and that only a small proportion actually focused on a distant future. That Revelation is prophecy further indicates that its contents are not to be relegated to some far-flung future period of time; God’s kingly intervention had already begun in Jesus, even if it was also the case that its complete fulfilment had not yet arrived. It should be noted that this was not a time of the quenched Spirit—this is the new Israel—when the Spirit of God has been poured out upon his covenant people (1.10-11; 19-10).
Finally, Revelation is a letter. Since the end is now, and these revelations were not to be sealed up, John writes a letter to the seven churches. As with all of the NT epistles, it is prompted by their immediate circumstances and thus is occasional in nature and is therefore intended to address the specific—even if more widely representative—needs of those churches. This indicates that the most fundamental hermeneutical principle to follow in properly understanding the book is to look for meanings that could have been intelligible to its original recipients, the first-century Christians of Asia Minor, not hidden meanings decipherable only to people living centuries later and half a world away who think that they may be living in the days immediately prior to Christ’s return. From his own contemporary perspective then, the author’s purpose is to write what he has seen: both what is now and what will take place (1.19), and his recipients are to “hear” and to “keep” this word; that is, to remain faithful in spite of what has happened and will happen.
In conclusion, Revelation is apocalyptic; born under suffering it uses symbolism and highly stylized imagery to encourage believers by speaking about the ultimate realities of judgement and salvation. It is prophetic in that it is the word of the Spirit to the present circumstances of God’s people. And it is a letter in that it is occasioned by the specific situations of the churches addressed.

(A more comprehensive and technical definition of the apocalyptic genre is:

"Apocalyptic entails the revelatory communication of heavenly secrets by an otherworldly being to a seer who presents the visions in a narrative framework; the visions guide readers into a transcendent reality, takes precedence over the current situation and encourages readers to persevere in the midst of their trials. The visions reverse normal experience by making the heavenly mysteries the real world and depicting the present crisis as a temporary, illusory situation. This is achieved via God’s transforming the world for the faithful."
See G.R. Osborne, Revelation [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002]: 14.)

Again Frankie, there's no need to get nasty. I'm not calling you or anybody else a "false prophet" or " false teacher" just because you're espousing the "damnable heresies" of Futurist eschatology. Seriously, we're just talking here.

or it's a prophecy that Christ reveals to John of the final days before his return.............you sure take the long way around to not answer a direct question.

Regarding any doctrine as "crucial" to salvation, if it is a doctrine from God then man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God, .........all doctrine is crucial to salvation.
There are what are called the "weighter matters"...........the gathering to the savior is closely knit with resurrection and resurrection is one of the core teachings and hope of believers, it's actually the only hope for all mankind and the message that this is the only method by which men can be saved from death and an eternity in the grave.

The example of the 2 witnesses being first resurrected then gathered to Christ is showing the completion of the promise and the hope

Revelation shows this resurrection and gathering to be truth in the most literal sense.............so if we're going to propose there is no gathering then we're also proposing there is not resurrection from death......so as Paul said, if Christ himself got victory over death and the grave then "how say some among you there is no resurrection"

yedida · Mar 6, 2011

gradyll said:
from rapture forums:

The resurrection of the just will occur in stages, and the stages will correspond with the three stages of a Jewish harvest: the first fruits, followed by the general harvest, and concluded with the gleanings. Jesus was the "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:23). The general harvest will occur at the Rapture when the Church Age saints will be resurrected and the living saints will be translated. The gleanings will occur at the end of the Tribulation at the Second Coming of Jesus. That is when the Old Testament saints and Tribulation martyrs will be resurrected.

I've not replied here to actually join the discussion of rapture or no, or when or where - I'll leave that up to Abba.
I did want to point out a thought that might have bearing on your premise, that of what you call the "gleanings."
First off, I've never heard this pov before, it's a brand new one to me!
Now, the the "gleanings." The gleanings of the field were NOT to be gathered by the owner/harvesters at all. If something was dropped it was to remain on the ground for the poor to go behind and pick up.

Lev 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
Lev 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Looking at that logically, if people are the "gleanings" and the people/gleanings belong to the Lord, by His own word He, the Owner, cannot gather them?

Not wanting to argue, just pointing out something that just doesn't fit.

chalkstc · Mar 6, 2011

dC,

Again Frankie, there's no need to get nasty. I'm not calling you or anybody else a "false prophet" or " false teacher" just because you're espousing the "damnable heresies" of Futurist eschatology. Seriously, we're just talking here.

Click to expand...

Sorry if I sound nasty, but it gets my goat when Christians deny something that is so clearly written, and then come back with a lengthly diatribe with "much speaking" and yet saying NOTHING.

How can you be a teacher of anything when you tout your supposed intelectualism to try to intimidate your hearers?

Your OP was there is no rapture, pre, mid, or post etc. You have proved nothing though many have quoted all the confirming texts. So be it, for you have neither ears nor eyes, but a stiff neck imo.

You seem to be a strict, no nonsense historist bordering on preterism? But the future will prove you wrong, and I promise not to say "I told you so"

What more can I say? But I' sure you have much more...................

Matt 6:7 f
or they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

KJV

Can you hear the sound of one hand clapping? LOL!

Nasty

the geech · Mar 6, 2011

You say that what you are interpreting in Scripture is what's "clearly written". The same can be said for the Amillennial view, the difference is Amillennialism works in conjunction with history, while Futurism has to ignore much of it in order to substantiate itself.

chalkstc · Mar 6, 2011

Hi geech,[

quote=the geech;56909443]You say that what you are interpreting in Scripture is what's "clearly written". The same can be said for the Amillennial view, the difference is Amillennialism works in conjunction with history, while Futurism has to ignore much of it in order to substantiate itself.[/quote]

Seems to me, that all the early church fathers who were as close as one casn get to the Aposstles teachings were all futurists. Amill came much later thru Augustine.................allegorical instead of literal sense

Though there is much allegorical and metaphorical themes in the Word, they all point to a true substance aka the 1000 yr reign for example. The parables are another string of literal truths. Hear this................

As Martin Luther wrote:

{The Holy Spirit's} words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense. . . . We are not to say that the Scriptures or the Word of God have more than one meaning. . .We are not to introduce any . . . metaphorical, figurative sayings into any text of Scripture, unless the particulars of the words compel us to do so.. . . For if anyone at all were to have power to depart from the pure, simple words and to make inferences and figures of speech wherever he wished. . . [then] no one could reach any certain conclusions about . . . any article of faith. . .

When the plain sense makes good sense, dont look for any other sense or you may end up with non-sense

Scriptural adjacency

That rule states:

When you read something you dont understand, first study the surrounding text, then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and its a very
good one.

In other words ...

We dont go to the Old Testament for definitions of New
Testament figures when there are New Testament definitions
that fit perfectly! 2

And hear Jesus.....................

John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
KJV

Hear Paul...............................

Rom 8:38

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

KJV

1 Cor 3:22

Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

23

And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

KJV

Col 2:17

Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

KJV

Heb 9:11

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

KJV

Heb 10:1

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

KJV

Heb 11:20

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

KJV

Don't you see that "things to come" is futurist in scope?
Hear Isaiah........................................

Isa 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

KJV

Child is born = past
Son is given = past
Government upon His shoulders = future

and the increase of His government shall be peace and no end.

Is the last above staement happening now in your amill view?

NADA!

createdtoworship · Mar 6, 2011

yedida said:
I've not replied here to actually join the discussion of rapture or no, or when or where - I'll leave that up to Abba.
I did want to point out a thought that might have bearing on your premise, that of what you call the "gleanings."
First off, I've never heard this pov before, it's a brand new one to me!
Now, the the "gleanings." The gleanings of the field were NOT to be gathered by the owner/harvesters at all. If something was dropped it was to remain on the ground for the poor to go behind and pick up.

Lev 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
Lev 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Looking at that logically, if people are the "gleanings" and the people/gleanings belong to the Lord, by His own word He, the Owner, cannot gather them?

Not wanting to argue, just pointing out something that just doesn't fit.

exactly, I don't think it's exact science. Gleanings is a catch phrase. But it's an interesting correlation for sure.

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

Manasseh_ said:
or it's a prophecy that Christ reveals to John of the final days before his return.............you sure take the long way around to not answer a direct question.

Regarding any doctrine as "crucial" to salvation, if it is a doctrine from God then man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God, .........all doctrine is crucial to salvation.
There are what are called the "weighter matters"...........the gathering to the savior is closely knit with resurrection and resurrection is one of the core teachings and hope of believers, it's actually the only hope for all mankind and the message that this is the only method by which men can be saved from death and an eternity in the grave.

The example of the 2 witnesses being first resurrected then gathered to Christ is showing the completion of the promise and the hope

Revelation shows this resurrection and gathering to be truth in the most literal sense.............so if we're going to propose there is no gathering then we're also proposing there is not resurrection from death......so as Paul said, if Christ himself got victory over death and the grave then "how say some among you there is no resurrection"

Nor am I calling into question the general resurrection of all people.
(How's that for a short answer to a non-direct non-question?)

Manasseh_ · Mar 6, 2011

dcyates said:
Nor am I calling into question the general resurrection of all people.
(How's that for a short answer to a non-direct non-question?)

you are if you're proposing there is no gathering at all of saints by Christ , his angels at his second coming, resurrection is a key part of this gathering of saints.

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
dC,

Sorry if I sound nasty...

No, you're not. The rest of your response betrays the fact that you're not the least bit sorry. (LOL! You even sign off at the bottom proudly identifying yourself as "Nasty.")

...but it gets my goat when Christians deny something that is so clearly written, and then come back with a lengthly diatribe with "much speaking" and yet saying NOTHING.

And it gets my goat when people, especially Christians, obstinately refuse to read the Bible in the manner in which it was intended.
"Tyger, Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night..."
How is this to be read and interpreted?
Well, obviously it has to do with feral beasts spontaneously combusting into flames during their nocturnal wanderings through deep, dark jungles. After all, that's what's clearly written. Right?

How can you be a teacher of anything when you tout your supposed intelectualism to try to intimidate your hearers?

What?!? It's not my fault if you feel intimidated.

Your OP was there is no rapture, pre, mid, or post etc. You have proved nothing though many have quoted all the confirming texts. So be it, for you have neither ears nor eyes, but a stiff neck imo.

Well, you're of course entitled to your opinion. But it's just that -- your opinion.
I've shown that the only text from which this entire nonsensical doctrine is derived, 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 (all other so-called corroborating texts for the Futurist stance are interpreted based on their reading of this text), in fact does not teach what you claim it does. It simply doesn't support the concept of the rapture as it's commonly understood. Too often this is seen as describing the Christian's journey to heaven with Christ. However, as I've already noted several times now, the Greek word for 'meet' (apantesis) used here in v. 17, bore very distinct connotations in the ancient Greco-Roman world. It designated an event where either the emperor or some other important dignitary was making an official visit to a given town or city, the citizens of that city, or a delegation of which, would expressly go out from the city to meet the emperor or dignitary and then escort them the rest of the way into their city. What is therefore being discussed here is not a 'rapture' where Christians are whisked off to heaven, but rather where Paul intended to comfort his audience by assuring them that they and their now-dead loved ones have indeed placed their lives in the correct hands; that is, that Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.
If you insist on reading this text in such a manner as to teach that there will be some sort of secret second coming of Jesus, during which Christians will suddenly start levitating up to somewhere around 10,000 feet off the ground to meet the Lord, then to understand the word "meet" (apantesis) properly, after saying 'Hi', we're all going to turn back around and start descending back to earth again, as we formally escort Jesus the rest of the way.

You seem to be a strict, no nonsense historist bordering on preterism? But the future will prove you wrong, and I promise not to say "I told you so"

Hey, if I'm wrong (but I'm not) then I couldn't care less if you say, "I told you so." Believe me, you'll have to stand in line.

What more can I say? But I' sure you have much more...................

Oh, I've barely even scratched the surface.

Matt 6:7 f

Click to expand...

or they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

KJV
Can you hear the sound of one hand clapping? LOL!

Nasty

Now you're getting into Zen Buddhist koans?!?

chalkstc · Mar 6, 2011

dc,

Not intimidated at all, but that does not keep you from trying....it's in your nature

Now you're getting into Zen Buddhist koans?!?

Click to expand...

Love it and you

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
Hi geech,[

quote=the geech;56909443]You say that what you are interpreting in Scripture is what's "clearly written". The same can be said for the Amillennial view, the difference is Amillennialism works in conjunction with history, while Futurism has to ignore much of it in order to substantiate itself.

Seems to me, that all the early church fathers who were as close as one casn get to the Aposstles teachings were all futurists. Amill came much later thru Augustine.................allegorical instead of literal sense

Though there is much allegorical and metaphorical themes in the Word, they all point to a true substance aka the 1000 yr reign for example. The parables are another string of literal truths. Hear this................

As Martin Luther wrote:

{The Holy Spirit's} words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense. . . . We are not to say that the Scriptures or the Word of God have more than one meaning. . .We are not to introduce any . . . metaphorical, figurative sayings into any text of Scripture, unless the particulars of the words compel us to do so.. . . For if anyone at all were to have power to depart from the pure, simple words and to make inferences and figures of speech wherever he wished. . . [then] no one could reach any certain conclusions about . . . any article of faith. . .

“When the plain sense makes good sense, don’t look for any other sense or you may end up with non-sense”[/quote]
See, this just goes to show how important cultural and historical context plays in properly understanding a text. Today, when we use the word 'literal' we mean that it's something that should be taken on its face (though not literally). In other words, if we hear some guy say, "I laughed so hard I literally fell on my face," then the way it's supposed to be meant is to say that this person laughed so much he ACTUALLY fell off his chair onto his face. However, the medieval sense of the word meant that when is something is read literally, then it's read in the manner in which it was intended. That is to say, if something is written as poetry, then to read it literally is to read it as poetry.
Similarly, when something is written in such a manner as to employ highly symbolic language, such as 'apocalyptic' literature, then to read it 'literally' -- as Martin Luther would have meant this -- means that it's to be read as a work employing highly symbolic language and imagery.

Scriptural adjacency

That rule states:

When you read something you don’t understand, first study the surrounding text, then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and it’s a very
good one.

In other words ...

We don’t go to the Old Testament for definitions of New
Testament figures when there are New Testament definitions
that fit perfectly! 2

Yeah. Unfortunately this 'rule', in reality, doesn't help much. If I said something like, "As I was driving to work this morning I was thinking about how much my boss has been driving me up the wall lately," the close proximity of the two uses of the word 'driving' does not help at all in properly understanding what was meant. And, in fact, to force one meaning upon both does actual damage to an accurate understanding of it.

And hear Jesus.....................
John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

KJV

Hear Paul...............................

Rom 8:38

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
KJV

1 Cor 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

KJV

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
KJV

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
KJV

Heb 10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
KJV

Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
KJV

Don't you see that "things to come" is futurist in scope?

Hear Isaiah........................................

Isa 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

KJV

Child is born = past

Son is given = past
Government upon His shoulders = future

and the increase of His government shall be peace and no end.

Is the last above staement happening now in your amill view?

NADA!

Huh? None of this even begins to touch on the issue of amillenialism.
(And I'm not sure, but doesn't 'nada' mean nothing?)

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

Manasseh_ said:
you are if you're proposing there is no gathering at all of saints by Christ , his angels at his second coming, resurrection is a key part of this gathering of saints.

Again, I'm not questioning the resurrection. Not in the least. Indeed, I affirm it. As well, I don't think I've ever cast doubt on whether or not there is a final 'gathering' of the saints. But if there is, it will be in the New Jerusalem, not in the clouds.

dcyates · Mar 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
dc,
Not intimidated at all, but that does not keep you from trying....it's in your nature

Hmm. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But considering you've never even met me, and know me only from our short correspondence on this one thread, I'm not sure how much weight one should put on that opinion.

LovedofHim · Mar 6, 2011

dcyates said:
Again, I'm not questioning the resurrection. Not in the least. Indeed, I affirm it. As well, I don't think I've ever cast doubt on whether or not there is a final 'gathering' of the saints. But if there is, it will be in the New Jerusalem, not in the clouds.

The New Jerusalem is in Heaven, at the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Here is the church, in the New Jerusalem in Heaven, after the great tribulation is cut short before the antichrist arises:

Rev 7:9After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
13And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Revelation 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

There is NO rapture!!!

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Justice is coming, no matter what we do.

In the grip of grace

Justice is coming, no matter what we do.

Senior Member

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

not the evil king Manasseh

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

In the grip of grace

Senior Member

not the evil king Manasseh

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency