What does the term "rapture" means to you - other than the dictionary definition of "upcatching"?

[Jonathan_Gale]

This just shows that God "nuking" Sodom was not intended to target righteous Lot. Even if Lot had remained in Sodom and suffered the "nuke," he will not have been the target of God's Wrath.

So in the endtimes, whether people are able to escape towns that are nuked or not, Christians are not the object of God's Wrath. But He would show them that they are indeed not the targets, and if they die, it is not a judgment against them.

Man, did I ever suggest we’re the targets of God’s wrath? Sadly, we’re the targets of Satan’s wrath, it was repeatedly written that saints are being martyred for beating the testimony of Christ, today we could get censored and accused for hate speech if we dare to share our faith on some platforms, and that’s just in America, I didn’t even begin to mention the rest of the world.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

We are already in a state of death. Just being removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh is a resurrection from eternal death to eternal life. The soul does not even go into the earth. This body returns to dust, and is never resurrected.

Those in Paradise since the Cross already have a permanent incorruptible physical body. They have been physically serving God day and night in that Heavenly Temple for 1993 years per Revelation 7.

The dead in Christ literally in a state of death are those currently physically walking around on the earth. All the rest of the church is enjoying eternal life.

I wish this was just rhetorics, man. It’s been reported that drug addicts are literally looking and acting like zombies. Other kinds of addicts may be less severe, but the hijacked brain pattern is similar. That’s what most people will be like without Christ, you know, numbing themselves with violence (gaming included), adultery (porn included) and drug (sorcery), that is mentioned somewhere in revelation.

 

[FenderTL5]

It means the man from Mars has stopped eating cars and eating bars and now he only eats guitars.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

No, the belief that the Roman Government was the "Restrainer" is a belief the ancient Church Fathers held to. Their reasons for believing this may be varied, but my own argument is that Daniel portrays the rise of Antichrist as coming not immediately, but only after a long continuation of an imperial tradition, followed by a breakup into States, and finally reconsolidation by Antichrist.

It is the structure of a unified Empire that initially prevents the rise of Antichrist. And this imperial structure has continued even after the two halves of the Empire broke up into States. Roman-originated Government is *still* preventing the rise of Antichrist. But he can't be far off!

You keep repeating "early church fathers" as talking point, what church fathers exactly are you referring to? The early church fathers I know all equated the Roman government, Nero in particular, as the Antichrist, early protestant church fathers see the pope as the antichrist, nobody thought of them as the "restrainer" of the antichrist. You gotta realize that this is 1984 Newspeak and isaiah 5:20 kind of thinking, black is white, up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery. "He" the restrainer is capitalized for a reason, I'm sure the translater of that knew more than you and I do.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

He does. It is called the time of the Gentiles.... Luke 21:24.

Luke 21:20-24, 70 AD .....2000 year time of the Gentiles......then Luke 21:25-36, time of the end.

Yes, that I totally agree, that's the missing part in Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the Olivet Discourse, but it's not in the 70 weeks prophecy, it's the "desolation" part which was determined to take place AFTER the 70 weeks.

 

[RandyPNW]

You keep repeating "early church fathers" as talking point, what church fathers exactly are you referring to? The early church fathers I know all equated the Roman government, Nero in particular, as the Antichrist, early protestant church fathers see the pope as the antichrist, nobody thought of them as the "restrainer" of the antichrist. You gotta realize that this is 1984 Newspeak and isaiah 5:20 kind of thinking, black is white, up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery. "He" the restrainer is capitalized for a reason, I'm sure the translater of that knew more than you and I do.

Chrysostom: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom)
One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end.

As I told you capitalizing "Restrainer" is not a matter of knowledge of the biblical languages. The words were not capitalized and is at the discretion of the translator. It is to be observed, from common knowledge of grammar, that capitalization does not have to denote Deity. It can just as easily denote a Proper Noun, such as "Rome."

CLICK

(QUOTE)
INTERPRETATION #1: The restrainer is the Roman government.
Most of the church fathers held to this view.[1] Under this view, Paul didn’t want to say this outright, because this would have led to persecution for the Church in the first century. On this view, the masculine singular (“he”) would refer to the Roman emperor, while the neuter pronoun (“what”) would refer to the Roman government.
(UNQUOTE)

 

[RandyPNW]

Man, did I ever suggest we’re the targets of God’s wrath? Sadly, we’re the targets of Satan’s wrath, it was repeatedly written that saints are being martyred for beating the testimony of Christ, today we could get censored and accused for hate speech if we dare to share our faith on some platforms, and that’s just in America, I didn’t even begin to mention the rest of the world.

I agree except that the typical Pretrib argument is that the Pretrib Rapture must take place before the rise of Antichrist because the Scriptures say the Church is to avoid the "Wrath of God." So it is Pretribbers who call Christians going through the time of Antichrist as being a suffering of "God's Wrath." We are told Christians should not have to suffer this because it is "God's Wrath." But if Christians are in the time of Antichrist, and die as martyrs, they are not suffering "God's Wrath." I agree that the are *not* suffering God's Wrath by being in the time of Antichrist!

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Chrysostom: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians (Chrysostom)
One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end.

As I told you capitalizing "Restrainer" is not a matter of knowledge of the biblical languages. The words were not capitalized and is at the discretion of the translator. It is to be observed, from common knowledge of grammar, that capitalization does not have to denote Deity. It can just as easily denote a Proper Noun, such as "Rome."

CLICK

(QUOTE)
INTERPRETATION #1: The restrainer is the Roman government.
Most of the church fathers held to this view.[1] Under this view, Paul didn’t want to say this outright, because this would have led to persecution for the Church in the first century. On this view, the masculine singular (“he”) would refer to the Roman emperor, while the neuter pronoun (“what”) would refer to the Roman government.
(UNQUOTE)

Even if this is true, it's referring to all governing authorites, the 70 nations from Babel. God divided the sons of Adam and set boundaries between them, according to Deut. 32:8. It's never limited to the Roman government. This is just assumption based on the tone of this analysis.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yes, but you have the wrong Roman ruler. And the Roman empire of the wrong era.

The little horn person, who will become leader over 10 EU leaders. That's the next prophesied event.





View attachment 334722

Out of all of the Church Fathers I can think of only 2 (perhaps 3) that held to a future view of Dan 9.26-27. Irenaeus and Hippolytus--H. was a follower of I. Imposing futurism on the passage is not my "cup of tea." However, perhaps I can go half way with you and recognize the Roman leader as a type of Antichrist?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I agree except that the typical Pretrib argument is that the Pretrib Rapture must take place before the rise of Antichrist because the Scriptures say the Church is to avoid the "Wrath of God." So it is Pretribbers who call Christians going through the time of Antichrist as being a suffering of "God's Wrath." We are told Christians should not have to suffer this because it is "God's Wrath." But if Christians are in the time of Antichrist, and die as martyrs, they are not suffering "God's Wrath." I agree that the are *not* suffering God's Wrath by being in the time of Antichrist!

As I said, that's a pain free cop out, the happy clappy Joel Osteen type of preaching, the ticking of itchy ears.

 

[RandyPNW]

Even if this is true, it's referring to all governing authorites, the 70 nations from Babel. God divided the sons of Adam and set boundaries between them, according to Deut. 32:8. It's never limited to the Roman government. This is just assumption based on the tone of this analysis.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I said the Church Fathers largely believed the Restrainer was the Roman Government. You asked for proof, and I provided some of it. How can you question if a quote from a Church Father is true?

 

[RandyPNW]

As I said, that's a pain free cop out, the happy clappy Joel Osteen type of preaching, the ticking of itchy ears.

I guess you lost the ability to debate?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I have no clue what you're talking about. I said the Church Fathers largely believed the Restrainer was the Roman Government. You asked for proof, and I provided some of it. How can you question if a quote from a Church Father is true?

Neither do I have any clue about your "church father". Whoever that is, I believe the translator who capitalized the "He" as "He that restrains" had more credibility than your church father.

I guess you lost the ability to debate?

Real debate doesn't exist, it's all just an exchange of opinions, especially in these days where everybody is so polarized. I've learned that you can never convince your opponent of anything, their mind is set in stone, what you can do is to convince the audience who may be insterested at what you present.

 

[oikonomia]

How funny is that? A Pretrib in an Amill church, while I'm a Postrib in a Pretrib church! It's a testament to both of us that we don't let peripheral difference destroy our brotherly unity with others.

Agreed that Body of Christ should not be factioned into sects destroying brotherly love and unity.
May I highlight what I would call some "assumptions" that may not necessarily hold?

I've given the reasons I'm Postrib, and they are indeed formidable arguments.

Here there seems an assumption that a taking up of the saints must be ALL pre-tribulation or ALL post-tribulation.
Assumption: Partial raptures could not happen. It must be ALL pre-trib or ALL post-trib.

Most of history had no Pretrib message--did Christians fail to understand Paul for 1830 years? I don't think so.

Suppose I said that for 1,000 years Justification By Faith was neglected until God used some like Martin Luther
to enlighten Christians to this truth? Does that mean the teaching was a new invention of Luther and the Reformers?

Do you assume here that because a long time of neglect of a NT truth, when attention is focused on it,
that must be a "new teaching" of those who so emphasize it?

Why not remember the Lord promising that the Holy Spirit would guide the saints into all the truth?

But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13)

And here I do not make the assumption either Luther or Darby were completely right in every aspect of their functions to recover
neglected truth in Scripture.

Also, 2 Thes 2 explicitly argues for Postrib. Pretribbers dispute the obvious statement from Paul that Christ can't come for his Church until Antichrist is revealed 1st.

The assumption is that part of the Church could not be taken before said great tribulation and part afterward.
The assumption is that any rapture of the Church must be all at one time.

Still a loving brother here, brother.

If we see in a growing field Firstfruits first and Harvest latter (ie. Revelation 14:1-5 comp. 14:14-16) why need I
assume there could be NO time difference and quantity difference in raptures?

Both the Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul said the church / kingdom of God was like a farm, a cultivated land producing
a ripened crop. (Mark 4:26-30; 1 Cor. 3:7-9)

The book of Revelation was written to encourage Christian to endure great tribulation and even martyrdom for Christ. It was not to encourage them to seek escape from this time.

Here the assumption may be that Christians on either side of rapture event (pre-trib or post-trib) could not BOTH
need encouragement from the Holy Spirit.

Why couldn't part of the church be encouraged to endure and are taken,
and then part of the church not having escaped need to be encouraged to endure still?

I need not assume that ALL encouraged to endure has to mean that ALL are ready to be raptured at the same time.

Anyway, Darbyism has its strength, which I believe is derived from his emphasis on the restoration of Israel (Premillennialism). I just reject any notion of escape from the reign of Antichrist--escape from God's Wrath yes, but not escape from the time when we are encouraged to be strong.

I do not assume that the ONLY purpose of rapture is escape.
Rapture could have more than one purpose:
1.) Escape from something
2.) Strategic advantage of attack in spiritual warfare.

Besides, on the escape side, rapture pre-tribulation is more likely the response of obedience to the Lord's command:

But be watchful at every time, beseeching that you would prevail to escape all these things which are about to happen and stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:36)

I don't believe Christians "left behind" will "repent." This is only a 3.5 year period, according to Daniel and the Revelation (not Dan 9). In Dan

By why assume a great awakening and repenting could not be over a three and a half year period?
If the command is to watch and beseech to prevail what is coming, a command may be heeded or not heeded.
And it may be heeded by some in a timely manner and heeded by others in a late remedial manner.

When John 3:16 says "whosoever believes" we do not assume all the world believes.
Why should I assume that "be watchful . . to prevail to escape" automatically means the whole church obeys?

Logically it should be expected that SOME heed the Lord's warning and are taken before these things
and some heed His warning late and are taken after these things.

Paul said "Until we all arrive . . . " (Eph. 4:13).
Did he say "we all arrive" necessarily at the same time?

Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, (Eph. 4:13)

and 12 we are plainly told Antichrist will reign for only 3.5 years.

Is the assumption that because Antchrist reigns 3.5 years ALL the church must be raptured at the same time?
If the church is a farm, a cultivated land growing Christ in people, why not some are early matured and some are latter matured?

Ie. Some are taken before the world wide hour of trial because they already learned the word of His endurance.
And some are taken at the end of the same trial having to learn the word of His endurance THROUGH such a period.

Ie. Some taken out of the hour - Because you have kept the word of My endurance, I also will keep you out of the hour of trial, which is about to come on the whole inhabited earth, to try them who dwell on the earth. (Rev. 3:10)

Some caught off guard and having to learn a hard lesson late- If therefore you will not watch, I will come as a thief, and you shall by no means know at what hour I will come upon you. (Rev. 3:3b)

And people don't repent, become mature Christians, and suffer martyrdom for Christ in just a few years!

I don't know what you would have this assumption.
Perhaps not all are martyred.
Perhaps the love and unity which you earlier spoke of becomes and matter of life and death with hightened urgency.

Ie. "If we do not hang together now we will surely all hang seperately."

And we need not assume that a minority of believers had this realization without needing 3.5 years of the
great tribulation. They had the incentive beforehand to "be watchful at every time, beseeching that you would prevail to escape all these things which are about to happen . . ." (Luke 21:36)

Neither can weak, repentant Christians become strong enough to spread the Gospel around the world in just a few years when the world will be opposed to the Gospel under Antichrist!

Here I think there is an assumption also.
Many strong Christians who were very mature were not in a position to "spread the Gospel" in that usual outreach evangelism sense.

Besides, the time for the gospel to be preached to all the world could be concluded yet Christians are still
on earth persectuted (some) martytred and some not.

Or their spreading of the Gospel is through their testimony of rather than their evangelizing.
The age is transitioning during that last 3.5 years.

All this sounds too much like a myth. And in my opinion, it is. Makes a great sci fi film, though.

I think reality is more fascinating than any science fiction.
But we have to read and understand the Bible real carefully.

We also have to consider the many examples in history.

Selective rapture has many confirming models in the Bible.

All the Israelites came out of Egypt. A remnant of them came into the Good Land.
The little army of Gideon's 300 spearheaded something for the sake of the whole nation.
Of all the Israelites taken to Babylon only a remnant returned to the promised land.
Jesus healed thousands. But only 120 were in the upper room waiting to receive the promise of the Spirit's power.

I would encourage you brother, not to assume God's hands are tied so that He HAS to rapture all the saints
on earth at one time. No farmer HAS to remove all the crop from the field on the same day.

Dougg's little motto "anytime rapture" (in that regard) is closer imo to the flavor of how rapture is taught in the Bible.
It corresponds imo to the tone: "All will be taken eventually. Watch and be ready to be taken at the optimal time."

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Here there seems an assumption that a taking up of the saints must be ALL pre-tribulation or ALL post-tribulation.
Assumption: Partial raptures could not happen. It must be ALL pre-trib or ALL post-trib.

Or both pre-trib and post-trib - we die pre-trib, we rise post-trib, in between we rejoice in heaven:

"rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.” (Rev. 12:12)

 

[Douggg]

Out of all of the Church Fathers I can think of only 2 (perhaps 3) that held to a future view of Dan 9.26-27. Irenaeus and Hippolytus--H. was a follower of I. Imposing futurism on the passage is not my "cup of tea." However, perhaps I can go half way with you and recognize the Roman leader as a type of Antichrist?

No former Roman leader is a type of Antichrist. The Antichrist, to be the Antichrist, the Jews have to consider him as their messiah. And, here is the important part, he has to be anointed the King of Israel, with the Jews' blessing.

That guy, whoever he is, is near term future, within the next ten years or sooner. His being anointed the King of Israel will shortly follow Gog/Magog. Which is probably pretty close.

 

[oikonomia]

Or both pre-trib and post-trib - we die pre-trib, we rise post-trib, in between we rejoice in heaven:

"rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.” (Rev. 12:12)

Okay now we're into it.

1.) the pre-tribulation rapture it to heaven.
2.) the end of tribulation rapture is to the air.

Jesus told the whole church to watch and be ready. Some heed and are taken pre-tribulation to the third heaven.
That includes some alive then watching deligently and some who died watching deligently.

Then Jesus begins His descent towards the earth and hovers in a pavillion near its surface.
Then at the end of the great tribulation He swoops up to the air those left alive and remaining.
That will include those alive and left remaining and those deceased and left.

This will have to be brief right now. But Revelation 12:12 strongly implies the above.
That is IF you do not assume that the WOE warning to those living on the earth still cannot include
Christians who missed being caught up to heaven and God's throne in 12:5,6.

Therefore be glad, O heavens and those who dwell in them.
Those who were caught up to His throne in verse 6.

Woe to the earth and the sea because the devil has come down to you and has great rage, knowing that he has only a short time.
This includes unbelievers on earth and believers who were not caught up to His throne in verse 6.

PUSHBACK: "No, no, no. The manchild caught up to His throne in verse 6 is only Jesus!"
REPLY: The manchild is a corporate group of overcoming saints. See plural pronouns
"they" "their" "them" in verse 10 concerning "our brothers".

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night.
And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their soul-life even unto death.

PUSHBACK: "No, no no. The entire church is invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb as His bride."
REPLY: The ones who attend that marriage supper are not just called and chosen.
They ADD to being called and chosen their own faithfulness.

These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and they who are with Him, the called and chosen and faithful, will also overcome them. (Rev. 17:14)

The ones accompanying Jesus as His army are the ones who have made themselves ready as a wife in Revelation 19.

Revelation 19:7,8 - Let us rejoice and exult, and let us give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And it was given to her that she should be clothed in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of the saints.

Revelation 19:14 - And the armies which are in heaven followed Him on white horses, dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

PUSHBACK: "No, no, no. The whole church is justified and made righteous ready to be Christ's wife."
REPLY: We need not assume the whole church is so ready at the same time. "Until we all arrive" only means eventually we all do.
And the righteousNESSES of the saints is not a typo. It means righteous deeds of living subjectively not just righteous position objectively.

. . . and His wife has made herself ready. And it was given to her that she should be clothed in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESSES [deeds, behavior, living] of the saints.

Do all Christians have a lifestyle of habitually living in this way?
What OUGHT to be and what IS are not always the same thing.

But I do not want to put words into your mouth or create strawmen.
So if you have objections to the above, I should let you state them.

 

[oikonomia]

Or both pre-trib and post-trib - we die pre-trib, we rise post-trib, in between we rejoice in heaven:

Looking again closer at this I would say, there is no reason to assume every believer dies before the great tribulation.
The Lord said "When the Son of Man comes will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

It is a question. The answer should be that some are living in faith still in the end of the age.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Looking again closer at this I would say, there is no reason to assume every believer dies before the great tribulation.
The Lord said "When the Son of Man comes will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

It is a question. The answer should be that some are living in faith still in the end of the age.

There’s no guarantee that we the gentile Christians are among those “some” who are alive in 1 Thess. 4:17 and not among the dead in 1 Thess. 4:16. It’s not about what the Scripture says, but what scenario it may apply to you and me. No amount of Ancient Greek study can give you a clear answer to that. Actually, it is more likely that only the Jews will be preserved, they will finally proclaim the name of the Lord (Matt. 23:39) and they will mourn at his coming (Matt. 24:30), by then we’re dead and crying out for justice (Rev. 6:10).

 

[RandyPNW]

No former Roman leader is a type of Antichrist. The Antichrist, to be the Antichrist, the Jews have to consider him as their messiah. And, here is the important part, he has to be anointed the King of Israel, with the Jews' blessing.

That guy, whoever he is, is near term future, within the next ten years or sooner. His being anointed the King of Israel will shortly follow Gog/Magog. Which is probably pretty close.

Yes, we don't have the same qualifications for being Antichrist. I believe he is a leader in Europe--not in Israel. The Roman leaders were types of Antichrist because John wrote in 1 John that there were already many Antichrists, indicating that Antichrist has predecessors. These were not kings of Israel, since when John wrote this there weren't any other than Agrippa, a Herodian king.