LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830

Originally posted by Byrd

No, i got it from the Summa Theologica and other old writings.

What Thomas Aquinas wrote on the doctrines believers held 1200 years before him can't be used as proof of what they believed any more than what one of us might write on it. What bears proof in this matter are the writings of the believers in the first centuries after Christ. Not a man 1200 years later. No matter how devoted he was to his own beliefs.

The apocalypse-beast-watchers-millenial rule-etc wasn't part of their theology.

Yes it was. And that's been substantially proven in this thread - with the writings of the first, second and third century church leaders. Not to mention those writings held within the canon itself. But then again, the argument of the apocalypse is not the discussion at hand.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Valhall]

Hi Byrd:

Byrd > Let's be sure we're talking apples to apples! I'm talking about LaHaye's beliefs and the general "rapture theology."

No sir. You have failed to quote LaHaye anywhere. You are talking about Byrd’s opinions of ‘his mental concept’ of what Paul is teaching on the Rapture (1Thes. 4:17). Your post above (posted on 9-10-2006 at 05:36 PM (post id: 2540101) also included no references to Scripture, but is filled wall to wall with Byrd’s unsound opinions. I am perfectly willing to allow the matter to drop, but if you insist . . .

Byrd > A theology is an interpretation of Christianity/the Bible. People interpret the Bible in many different ways (which is why we have sects like the 7th Day Adventists.) In matters of theology and doctrine, the "connection to the Biblical facts" is the way the person interprets the doctrine (and not the way I interpret it.) So...

Please stop patronizing your debating opponent AND the readers of this thread with nonsense. Your post above contains NO SCRIPTURE and NO interpretation of any Bible verse at all. You came out here under the false notion that Byrd is going to “settle the argument” (your words) once and for all with mere opinion.

Byrd > To review: LaHaye's theology is this (from his own website): [snip] That's the theology that he presents.

LaHaye’s opinions also include NO SCRIPTURE at all. How do you guys get by without including support from God’s Word? SpeakerOfTruth’s Topic Sentence says, “LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830”. Only one line of your list even addresses LaHaye’s “Rapture” Ideology “Rapture—the resurrection of believers at some point before Christ's second coming.” Paul’s Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) teaching says we are ‘caught up’ when the “day of the Lord” (1Thes. 5:1+2) is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2). Peter gives one day to the Lord as the same “a thousand years” (2Pet. 3:8) that the devil is in the pit (Rev. 20:2-7). Therefore, since LaHaye’s Rapture Ideology says we are taken “at some point BEFORE Christ’s second return (Matt. 24:20-31) at the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3), then LaHaye is indeed right and the Thessalonians most certainly received this teaching from Paul LONG before 1830. Speaker’s thesis is wrong and your opinions of the situation are incorrect also.

Byrd > Except for John, none of the other books of the Bible talks about this sequence of events. None of the other writers speaks of a final battle.

Paul describes our ‘mystery’ (1Cor. 15:51) Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians and NEVER connects that to ANY final battle. He tells the Thessalonians to “lead a quiet life” (1Thes. 4:11), just before describing our Rapture. Paul mentions no wars and rumors of wars described in Matthew 24, because he is describing how the 1000 Years “Day of the Lord” BEGINS. Jesus Christ (Matt. 24) is describing how the same 1000 Years Period ENDS 1000 Years LATER. LaHaye and most everyone here are mixing the beginning AND the end of the 1000 Years Day of the Lord together without recognizing the difference. I describe the vast difference here >> www.abovetopsecret.com... . Your statement about John and Revelation is BOGUS, because our mystery church (Eph. 5:32) was raptured with the trumpet heard “behind” John (Rev. 1:10). We appear as Christ’s brand new ‘body’ standing before John in Rev. 1:11-19. John is not writing about events leading up to the “Day of the Lord” STARTING. He is describing the actual events of the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10 = Day of the Lord) that have already started. Satan was chained (Rev. 20:2) with the sound of the trumpet heard ‘behind’ John, as this was accompanied by the “voice of the archangel” (1Thes. 4:16) chaining Satan to START the 1000 Years (2Pet. 3:8) “Day of the Lord” (2Pet. 3:10).

Byrd > Quite true, and deliberately so. Nobody wants to read a 6,000 word essay on the individual churches and their squabbles!!

Nobody what?? And your mere opinions of a distorted view on what ‘the church’ means will suffice? Please . . .

Byrd > I could have elaborated, of course, but Paul was the head of the churches and in order for them to exist under his blessing they had share certain beliefs that he held. Important beliefs. Right?

You are skirting the issue with things that really have no application to this topic at all. The fact is that Paul himself is teaching our “Rapture” (1Thes. 4:17) to these Thessalonians, and what LaHaye believes has no application whatsoever. SpeakerOfTruth’s hypothesis is faulty, because he/she did not connect his premise to what GOD says on this topic; as if the ideology of a mere man means ANYTHING. This allows every Doubting Thomas in here to point at the feeble interpretations of LaHaye, instead of focusing their attention of God’s Living Word.

Terral Original > Members of these ‘factions / sects’ within the church offered their interpretations of Paul’s Epistles to the assembly, then the church itself had to decide which sect had aligned their explanations with what ‘is’ written.

Byrd > Do you have a source for this (or did you suddenly hop in your argument from the time when Paul was alive to 100 years later)? When Paul was alive, he visited all the churches and wrote them and would certainly have straightened out any alteration in what he wanted taught!

The churches of the Pauline Epistles are ‘the’ churches comprising the true “body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) who believed the “message of truth” (Eph. 1:13-14). My ‘factions’ source was given from 1Corinthians 11:19. You are saying “church” as in Roman Catholic Denomination without thinking “Ekklesia” from the Pauline Epistles.

Terral Original >> Your position is that the early church to whom this Epistle was written had “No [Rapture] Theological Position.” Okay then, how do you believe they interpreted these words by Paul? Good Luck!

Byrd >> But Paul doesn't talk about the: • Church Age, • Resurrection of believers at some point before Christ's second coming (that verse talks about him coming and grabbing up everyone and taking them all away to heaven. Period.) . . .

Are you blind OR trying to mislead the readers of this thread with this nonsense? There is no such thing as any “Church Age” in your Bible anywhere.

[Continued]

We have been living through the same “Evil Age” (Gal. 1:4) since darkness (Eph. 6:12) fell in Genesis 1:2. The ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3, Dan. 12:13) comes with the Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) and the new creation of Revelation 21:1+. The dispensationalists invented this “Church Age” nonsense, when they are actually trying to describe the “dispensation of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2) given to the Apostle Paul for Gentiles coming to God through his “word of the cross” (1Cor. 1:18) gospel message. Paul teaches our translation to immortality in 1Cor. 15:51-53 AND 1Thes. 4:13-17.

Byrd > Tribulation, Armageddon, Millennium, kingdom of Christ. Final Rebellion, Resurrection of everyone (not just Christians). Judgment. Remember, those are the points that are defined as "Rapture theology."

No sir. These are component parts of LaHaye’s End Time “Eschatology,” which includes one line about his “Rapture” ideology. You are slinging mud too and fro by introducing a laundry list of ‘Prophetic’ components, when Paul himself connects ‘our’ Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) to “the mystery” (Eph. 3:3 = www.blueletterbible.org... ) in 1Cor. 15:51. By the true definition of “musterion” (#3433 = Mystery), these things remained “hidden IN GOD” (Eph. 3:9), until these ‘sacred secrets’ were revealed through Paul’s Epistles. You are GUILTY of mixing the precepts of things ‘hidden in God’ with those prophetic events given to the OT Prophets. The fact that Lahaye is wrong about 1000 things does not make Byrd right about anything.

Terral Original >> Please forgive, but your entire post does not contain a single reference to God’s Living Word. To claim these Thessalonians are “reformed Jews” is ridiculous, as Paul never quotes any OT prophets and does not even mention “The Law” once.

Byrd > They had been Jewish, and they had the Jewish culture and tradition and were originally considered a Jewish sect: en.wikipedia.org...

Bullony! You have some nerve bringing the winkipedia into this debate, as if they are describing the churches of the Apostle Paul in Scripture. What does Paul say?

“ . . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about [the] obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake . . .”. Romans 1:5.

“I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.” Romans 1:13.

“What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who DID NOT pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but ISRAEL [third person], pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone . . .”. Romans 9:30-32.

“I say then, they [Israel = Romans 11:7] did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.” Romans 11:11.

“But I am speaking to you who are GENTILES. Inasmuch then as I am an APOSTLE OF GENTILES, I magnify my ministry.” Romans 11:13.

“ . . . to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Romans 15:16.

“. . . who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also ALL the CHURCHES of THE GENTILES . . .”. Romans 16:4.

Shall we go through and list all of Paul’s references to these “Gentile” Churches that preexist your RC Denomination by hundreds of years??? Because these are only the ones to these Romans!

Byrd > The Epistle of Barnabas and other early church documents show that some of the Christian groups were still holding to Jewish practices as late as 150 AD:
www.carm.org... [snip nonsense]

The what?? Your “Epistle of Barnabas” is not part of our Holy Bible. Do you ever quote and use ANYTHING from God’s Living Word?? The credibility meter is going south with every word from Byrd . . . [snip more nonsense]

Terral Original >> Heh . . . They were all what??!! There is no such thing as any “Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Protestant” even born in the time the events of Acts and Paul’s Epistles were committed to parchment.

Byrd Confesses >> Badly written on my part... I meant that the church, as organized, became what we now call the Catholic church. The beliefs of the early fathers became the doctrine of the Catholic Church (sects broke off from them, but the religious views of Rapture Theology never sprouted from them.)

Please . . . Poppycock! The RC Denomination is a man-made abomination invented by men under the power of the ‘deluding influence’ (2Thes. 2:11) and the “mystery of iniquity” (2Thes. 2:7) at work even in Paul’s day. They have blended the two gospels of the NT into one false gospel that DOES NOT SAVE. Water Baptism is their first sacrament, which is a doctrinal precept of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, etc.) that we do NOT even preach today. Paul teaches that ‘our gospel” (Gospel #2 www.abovetopsecret.com... ) is veiled to those who are “perishing” (2Cor. 4:3-4) and they OBVIOUSLY do not know the difference. Your eyes are focused upon the false “Goliath” churches of the Denominations, instead of the ‘remnant’ (Rom. 9:27, 11:5) ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) church in the world like the little boy “David” called to God through the “mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, Col. 4:3). GL seeing the difference . . .

In Christ Jesus even now,

Terral


[edit on 11-10-2006 by Terral]

Queenie, Byrd:

Queenie >> Just a word of warning, Terral - Byrd will KICK YOUR BUTT on facts and all things of a true scholarly nature.

How about if we allow the third party judges to gather the facts from both sides and judge us both! Fair? Thank you.

Byrd >> Actually, EARLY Christianity was defined by an agreed-upon set of rules and canons. In these times, there's no doctrine that everyone adheres to and everyone's welcome to make their own interpetation.

No sir. The right interpretation is the one saying exactly what God says without creating a single contradiction. If memory is serving me correctly, you have failed to quote one Word from God in this debate. The Gentile Churches of the Pauline Epistles received ‘his’ teachings on the Rapture (1Cor. 15:51-53, 1Thes. 4:13-17), for which I am still waiting to hear your ‘interpretation.’ GL.

Terral Original >> The RC Denominations created BY MEN have blended the ‘water and blood’ (1Jn 5:6) aspects of Christ’s ministry into one mishmash of doctrine that God sent to NOBODY.

Byrd >> So, in your view, all versions of Christianity before modern Christianity are wrong?*

What kind of nonsense is that? Paul’s teachings to his NT churches are ‘right,’ and the inventions of the modern day Denominations are ‘wrong.’ Your mental image of “modern Christianity” is taken from the Encyclopedia! Heh . . .

Byrd >> This would, then, include the doctrine of the trinity which wasn't an original point of early Christianity and many other theological points. I think it's interesting that so many reject the words and ideas and doctrine established by the earliest church fathers (who were taught directly by the original apostles) in favor of their own personal beliefs.

Garbage in . . . garbage out. Byrd’s ‘straw man’ tactic is to ask the above bogus question*, then to turn around and answer with more bogus nonsense. What has the trinity to do with this topic? Nothing. When does he get around to actually addressing what God DOES teach on this Rapture (1Thes. 4:13-17, 1Cor. 15:51-53) Topic????

Byrd >> My personal belief is that these old theologians have a lot to say about the subject and their views and doctrines are a lot more authentic and true to the original teachings than a modern preacher's view.

Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth and quote “God >>” and His Word from the applicable passages!

Byrd >> Of course, this is only my view. I'm a great fan of "go to the original sources and original commentaries."

LOL . . . Maybe this explains why you shy away form writing any of your own! Queenie is under the misguided notion that Byrd is going to show me something from his ‘scholarly nature.’ Maybe she has yet to realize the typical characteristics of a ‘cut and paste’ theologian!

Terral Original >> Paul’s “Rapture” is taught by him to the Thessalonians in about 47 AD (1Thes. 4:13-17), which predates anything drummed up by the Catholics.

Byrd’s Reply >> And it's nothing like theology (above) taught by LaHaye.

Again, are you blind or simply running away from the truth? LaHaye’s own words say, “Rapture—the resurrection of believers at some point BEFORE Christ's second coming.”

Christ’s second coming (Matt. 24:30+31) is connected directly to the “end of the age” (Matt. 24:3+). Right? Right. That is the END of the 1000 Years (2Pet. 3:8, Rev. 2:5) Day of the Lord (2Pet. 3:10). Paul connects our Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) to when that “Day of the Lord” (1Thes. 5:1+2) COMES or is “at hand” (2Thes. 2:2). That places our Rapture 1000 years BEFORE any of the Matthew 24 events even begin! Since Paul’s Thessalonian ‘church’ (1Thes. 1:1, 2Thes. 1:1) obviously received his teaching long before 1830, then your bold assertions here are obviously wrong. If men are going around creating their own definitions of these terms, then you can prove Jesus Christ is a 1965 Mustang and our Rapture is convertible seats. Mr. Byrd here feels justified in refusing to give his ‘interpretations’ on what Paul DOES teach in these verses, because his head is tucked firmly in the sand on many of these related issues. He simply diverts attention away from recognizing Paul’s churches as existing prior to his personal “RC Denomination,” and anyone pointing to God’s Word and Paul’s teaching on this “Rapture” Topic can go to hell.

Byrd >> No, i got it from the Summa Theologica and other old writings.

You what? Heh . . . Everyone here is waiting to see your ‘interpretations’ of 1Cor. 51:51-53 AND 1Thes. 4:13-17 on what God teaches us through Paul’s Epistles on THIS “RAPTURE” TOPIC. Stop diverting attention away from Paul’s teachings to his Gentiles churches centuries before your RC denomination was born and just give us ‘your’ explanation of what he ‘is’ teaching.

Byrd >> Paul himself was caught up in a rapture and raptures were written about by early Christian writers. In these cases, they were swept up into the presence of God and came back with visions and revelations.

Who cares??!! How can you sit there and expect others to stay focused on ‘the topic,’ when you are constantly running away to write about something else? Paul (2Cor. 12:1+) is NOT describing our ‘church’ being ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) and LaHaye is NOT including Paul’s personal experience as part of his End Time Eschatology OR his “Rapture” Ideology. Your are throwing everything against the wall in hope that perhaps something will stick, instead of staying focused and writing up the “Rapture” (1Thes. 4:17) doctrine taught by Paul that LaHaye ACCURATELY places ‘BEFORE’ Christ’s second coming in Matthew 24:30-31. The remaining component parts of LaHaye’s Eschatological Interpretations of “End Time” events has no bearing whatsoever on anything in ‘this’ debate.

Byrd >> The apocalypse-beast-watchers-millenial rule-etc wasn't part of their theology.

Lord – Have – Mercy. Hopefully by now the lights are coming on and you recognize the VAST differences between LaHaye’s End Time Eschatology and his “Rapture” Ideology. My arms are wearing out for trying to point out the differences.

[Continued]

Byrd >> But, I gather that we both concur on both these points -- that it means a "sweeping away" of one or more persons to the presence of God but does NOT mean the Beast/Apocalypse/etc as promoted by LaHaye.

Stop trying to point at LaHaye being wrong and start addressing what Paul ‘is’ teaching on this “Rapture” (1Thes. 4:17) Topic to the Gentile Churches of our New Testament. You guys are asserting (falsely) that LaHaye’s (Rapture = 1Thes. 4:17 = caught up) Ideology was NOT even considered by Paul’s Churches in our New Testament, which is just about as FAR from The Truth as you can be. Crack open your own Bible, read the prescribed verses (1Cor. 15:51-53, 1Thes. 4:13-15) and try to make that case by ‘rightly dividing’ (2Tim. 2:15) “God’s Living Word.” GL.

In Christ Jesus AND anticipating the Rapture (1Thes. 4:17),

Terral

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Byrd:

Byrd > Let's be sure we're talking apples to apples! I'm talking about LaHaye's beliefs and the general "rapture theology."

No sir. You have failed to quote LaHaye anywhere. You are talking about Byrd’s opinions of ‘his mental concept’ of what Paul is teaching on the Rapture (1Thes. 4:17). Your post above (posted on 9-10-2006 at 05:36 PM (post id: 2540101) also included no references to Scripture, but is filled wall to wall with Byrd’s unsound opinions. I am perfectly willing to allow the matter to drop, but if you insist . . .

For someone who hates human interpretation, you sure do use an awful lot of it,sir. I have yet to see you post a scripture where you didn't give your interpretation or the interpretation of some "expert."

What you fail to realize is that is what the "church" has built its doctrine on. Human interpretation. What makes you so certain that you or any pastor knows anymore about the word of God than any other Joe Shmole? That is the question I really want you to answer.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What you fail to realize is that is what the "church" has built its doctrine on. Human interpretation. What makes you so certain that you or any pastor knows anymore about the word of God than any other Joe Shmole? That is the question I really want you to answer.

The problem with people like Mr. Terrel is that he is building his own sect and denomination of church believes with his theory

He is using ATS to get people to agree with theory and he is gathering followers.

He attacks anybody that has more knowledge of facts than him and that is a very dangerous trait, on radical fundamentalism.

Beware faithful believers you got a false prophet among you.

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem with people like Mr. Terrel is that he is building his own sect and denomination of church believes with his theory

He is using ATS to get people to agree with theory and he is gathering followers.

He attacks anybody that has more knowledge of facts than him and that is a very dangerous trait, on radical fundamentalism.

Beware faithful believers you got a false prophet among you.

While I am certainly not going to accuse him of such,I will agree that many of the tactics he uses are the same ones that "cult" leaders use. There was a guy over at Godlikeproductions that seemed to be doing much the same. He'd quote verse after verse and denounce human interpretation while he himself used his own interpretation to make points. Unless he wasn't human,he was using human interpretation.

SpeakerofTruth

That is the problem that people that prophecies theories in a maner that have no room for question, because they seem to force the truth (as preached by them) are indeed able to gather people that will blindly follow what they have to say.

Then you can see what happen when sects goes wrong, people tend to die.

Dangerous, very dangerous.

The tactics " of my views or hell way" are very good influences of faith.



[edit on 11-10-2006 by marg6043]

Hi Spearker:

Speaker >> For someone who hates human interpretation, you sure do use an awful lot of it,sir. I have yet to see you post a scripture where you didn't give your interpretation or the interpretation of some "expert."

I am not here to tell you how to run ‘your’ thread, but your post here can be interpreted to be directed at Byrd or me. You know I am addressing “Speaker,” because your name appears atop my post. Of course I give ‘my’ interpretations of God’s Word, that is my ‘twist and take’ (see your posting guidelines on the ‘reply’ page) in the form of ‘commentary.’ Your statement above is NOT written to me, because I never quote any other Bible commentator, unless his name is Jesus Christ, Paul or some other Bible principal. Of course, my debating ‘opponents’ are quoted to give my own words context to something in the debate.

Speaker >> What you fail to realize is that is what the "church" has built its doctrine on. Human interpretation.

God’s Word MUST be interpreted, or everyone runs around with 2000 different ‘interpretations’ that divide the body of Christ. The reader is to compare the interpretations of everyone here to what God is saying in Scripture through all those principals to figure out for themselves who is “approved” (1Cor. 11:19) by God (2Tim. 2:15). Posting verses without commentary is throwing time and effort after foolishness, because everyone interprets the same verses from their own preconceived notions. The valuable asset of all ATS members writing on these Bible topics is ‘their’ own interpretation that allows us insight into their knowledge of the topic. I have not spent my entire adult life studying God’s Word to simply quote verses and leave our readers in the dark about how we are to ‘interpret’ them. God appointed pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11) for the edifying and the maturing of the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12+13), which means preaching

“. . . the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
For the time will come when they will NOT endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will TURN AWAY their ears from THE TRUTH and will turn aside TO MYTHS.” 2Timothy 4:2-4.

You guys can cut and paste verses and quote from the encyclopedia all you like, but I am here to follow the “Lord’s Commandment” (1Cor. 14:37+38) given to our “His body” Church (Col. 1:24) through the Apostle Paul.

Speaker >> What makes you so certain that you or any pastor knows anymore about the word of God than any other Joe Shmole? That is the question I really want you to answer.

Everyone here has the capacity of knowing by simply comparing the testimony of every ATS member writing on these topics to the truth of God’s Living Word for themselves. If you do not care to take the time and check everything out, then Scripture says you are shortchanging yourself. I have been debating these topics with scholars around the world since long before anyone invented the Internet and my arguments have withstood the test of meaningful and exhaustive debate for decades and decades. The proof is in the pudding, my mother would say, and everyone here has the right and duty to taste for themselves and to judge US ALL. If our readers want to believe those shouting "NO RAPTURE!,"that is no skin off my bones at all. I do not possess the abilities to inject my 'faith of Jesus' (Rom. 3:26) into anyone and make them believe.

Simply “quote me >>” and point out any errors you see using Scripture and I will do the same for you. GL in the debates,

In Christ Jesus right this moment,

Terral

Marg, Speaker (mentioned):

My thanks to Speaker for reminding me to take Marg off Ignore, as she stands with Flyer and his “NO RAPTURE!” position, which served no purpose on my own Rapture ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ). That is like having a “Deity” discussion with atheists chiming in to say “NO GOD!” in my book. Maybe she can add something to this debate . . .

Marg >> The problem with people like Mr. Terrel is that he is building his own sect and denomination of church believes with his theory. He is using ATS to get people to agree with theory and he is gathering followers.

Our resident scholar could not be more wrong (1 ‘e’ in Terral BTW). I have no denominational affiliations whatsoever and do not advise anyone to leave their own church; nor am I selling anything for profit for any sect of denomination. My debating opponents and our readers are invited to compare my explanations with what is written in their own Bibles, as I work to prove beyond all doubt that God’s Word is indeed “Living AND Active” (Heb. 4:12). I am here to assist in the edification and the maturing (Eph. 4:12+13) of the “body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) among the ATS membership and my adversaries are encouraged to “quote me >>” and offer their opposing views using Scripture. 2Tim. 2:15.

Does anyone here see my attempts to link anyone to my personal websites or those of any denomination? No. Do I prance around with fancy titles like “Scholar” and “Writer-Scholar” by my name to assert the pretense of anything? No. The fact is that I quote and give more references to Scripture than all of my debating opponents combined, as they love to sit back and pass judgment upon ‘my person’ with personal attacks and the kind of innuendo we are seeing right here by Marg. If I am so wrong and Ms. Marg here has the answers, then why not simply “quote me >>” and show everyone here the folly of my arguments? That would require her to actually crack open her Bible and build an actual case for something from God’s Word, and some of us have no time for such nonsense . . . Why attack the message, when she can just throw rocks at me instead?? Heh . . . That's funny.

Marg >> He attacks anybody that has more knowledge of facts than him and that is a very dangerous trait, on radical fundamentalism.

Really? That finger pointing at me reveals three crooked witnesses shouting profusely about you! Did you manage to quote one thing I have written on ‘the topic’ of this debate? Heh . . . Where are all these “facts” from your thoughtful scholarly commentary?? I cannot even quote you on this topic, because this “Dear Terral” Love Letter addresses nothing on the topic.

Marg’s Finger Pointing >> Beware faithful believers you got a false prophet among you.

Here is your grand opportunity to make these accusations stick. All you have to do is “quote me >>” on any of these Bible Topics and prove to everyone that I am the false prophet. That should be very easy for someone running around with your credentials. Right? Okay then. Since you have been taken off Ignore, I look very much forward to hashing out our differences in meaningful debate. GL. However, be prepared for these false accusations to come home and roost WITH YOU.

Hey, a little controversy is the spice of a truly “Great Debate.” My view is that you have insufficient stature “IN” Christ Jesus to write a pair of solid paragraphs of commentary on ANY of these Bible Topics. Start a thread on any subject from Genesis to Revelation and let’s debate the topic and see who is right. GL again,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Byrd:

Byrd > Let's be sure we're talking apples to apples! I'm talking about LaHaye's beliefs and the general "rapture theology."

No sir. You have failed to quote LaHaye anywhere. You are talking about Byrd’s opinions of ‘his mental concept’ of what Paul is teaching on the Rapture (1Thes. 4:17). Your post above (posted on 9-10-2006 at 05:36 PM (post id: 2540101) also included no references to Scripture, but is filled wall to wall with Byrd’s unsound opinions. I am perfectly willing to allow the matter to drop, but if you insist . . .

For someone who hates human interpretation, you sure do use an awful lot of it,sir. I have yet to see you post a scripture where you didn't give your interpretation or the interpretation of some "expert."

What you fail to realize is that is what the "church" has built its doctrine on. Human interpretation. What makes you so certain that you or any pastor knows anymore about the word of God than any other Joe Shmole? That is the question I really want you to answer.

Yes, that's the fatal problem with all "reformed" versions of "Christianity", from Luther onward, and why none of them have any claim to be improvements over Catholicism.

Originally posted by Terral
as she stands with Flyer and his “NO RAPTURE!” position,

For the thousandth time .. I'm a GIRL!

Do I prance around with fancy titles like “Scholar” and “Writer-Scholar”

The people that have those titles have earned them. YOU prance (your term) around spouting your own brand of unscriptural christianity along with arrogance and insults. BTW .. you have brought up the titles people are awarded more than once .. JEALOUS??

If I am so wrong ...

You are wrong. Your position that there is a rapture has been debunked. You have already been given the threads that show it has been debunked.

That would require her to actually crack open her Bible and build an actual case for something from God’s Word,

tsk tsk tsk .. there is that unchristian behavior again ... You have no idea how much scripture Marg reads.

My view is that you have insufficient stature “IN” Christ Jesus ...

tsk tsk tsk .. another judgement. judge not lest ye be judged.

Here's a decernment for ya' ... you display NO Christian attitude or behavior. Your interpretations are beyond exotic and, frankly, unimportant as far as salvation goes. Considering how wrong your attitude is, your 'theology' can't be far behind.


[edit on 10/11/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Terral

Here is your grand opportunity to make these accusations stick. All you have to do is “quote me >>” on any of these Bible Topics and prove to everyone that I am the false prophet.

True Prophets Are Always In Harmony With Other Prophets Of God And Scripture they don't invent or follow myths or make their own theories of the scriptures, Mr. Terral.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Are you a prophet Mr. terral?






[edit on 11-10-2006 by marg6043]

Marg, Flyer:

Marg >> True Prophets Are Always In Harmony With Other Prophets Of God And Scripture they don't invent or follow myths or make their own theories of the scriptures, Mr. Terral. [snip] Are you a prophet Mr. terral?

How ridiculous. Anyone can point and say “Heretic!,” and quote these same verses to anyone about anything. What have I ‘prophesied’ about anyway? Heh . . . Nothing. You are confusing the ideas of offering one’s ‘interpretation’ with someone going around and inventing prophecy. What makes Marg’s ‘interpretations’ any more or less her ‘theory’ than mine? I quote God on ‘this’ Rapture topic (1Cor. 15:51-53, 1Thes. 4:13-17) and give my ‘interpretations’ just like anybody else. Marg is on a witch hunt and trying to make her Heretic Mountain out of a ‘debate molehill.’ So what if my ‘interpretations’ are different from what Marg might believe. Many ATS members hold different interpretations on the same verses. Does that make them false prophets (Heh) too? Which brings us to the question of how Marg interprets Paul’s words on this topic:

“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 1Corinthians 15:51-55.

“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself WILL DESCEND FROM HEAVEN with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God [1Cor. 15:52], and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds to MEET THE LORD in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” 1Thessalonians 4:15-17.

Flyer >> Here's a decernment for ya' ... you display NO Christian attitude or behavior.

I suppose you running from thread to thread ranting about ‘Terral, Terral, Terral’ represents your Christian attitude and behavior working overtime. Get real dude and stop being a "Scoffer" (Acts 13:41). The very best way to characterize your terrible behavior is that of the ATS village idiot. I have read a half dozen of your award winning rants today and can never “quote you >>” writing on the Topic of the thread. One must wonder why the Mods allow you to use this room to spread your “Terral Hate Mail,” that tells more of a story about you than me. GL swinging your “Terral Is Terrible” towel. Heh . . . What a joke.

Okay, Ms. Scholar and Mr. Scoffer, everyone here is waiting in great anticipation of seeing how both of you interpret these words from the Apostle Paul. Go ahead . . . make our day . . . This will be funny. Stay tuned. ; 0 )

GL in the debate.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

ADMIN EDIT: Terral, we don't tolerate rude, overly bombastic, or simply snide posts on ATS. I have decided to simply warn you 4 times (which means if another Mod warns you you will be "post banned" for 3 days) on the hope you will "get it". Oh, and by the way, it's obvious you have no idea what the "scholar, fighter and writer" tags represent and you're making yourself look foolish commenting on them in the way you have been here, go look into it in the site information.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Terral]

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Springer]

I'm still trying to figure out, Terral, what part of this phrase

"who are left till the coming of the Lord"

you can't wrap your mind around. I Thessalonians 4:13-15 states clearly, as does Christ, as do all the early church fathers writings I have quoted in this thread, that the 'catching up' of the living believers will come after the resurrection of the dead in Christ which will not occur until the coming of the Lord.

That doesn't even take interpretation - it just takes reading comprehension.

Originally posted by darkelf
I’m also surprised that no one has mentioned the argument over whether the Pseudo Ephraem (373 A.D.) document is pro or con rapture. I am looking for a complete translation of this text, but so far can only find parts.

The first I heard of this was from you, here - but I found a link today - Ephraem

I don't know enough yet to know if a fragment or complete - anyway - you might find it to be useful.

God's peace and goodwill to you, darkelf!

Terral,since you are so keen on quoting scripture. I suggest that you and others who are looking for a miraculous sign or rapture to keep these words in mind. Matthew 16:2-4

MT 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
MT 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
MT 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

After all, most rapture believers do say that it will be a sign of the end. The bible is quite explicit that there will be know such signs. Jesus also said that he will come "as a thief in the night," now, the mass abduction of millions of people would not be very subtle now would it.

Out of the mouth of Christ himself,Terral:

John 17:15 (JESUS praying to The Father) "I pray NOT that thou shouldest TAKE THEM OUT OF THE WORLD, but that thou should keep them from evil."

So,your "rapture" theology does not even stand under the pretext that you say it does, not even from the very Son of God!! You see,when I use scripture,I don't have to use verse after verse. I get to the needy-greedy. God bless.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Mr. Terral

I hold no animosity toward you, I have no reason for that, I am questioning your motives for bringing your theory and what do you expect to gain with it.

I will like to know how do you know that your are right and others are not in your interpretations.

I very much will like to know what makes you so sure of what your present.

Mr. Terral does God speaks to you?

See I am not on a witch hunt Mr. Terral, unless you feel yourself persecuted, then that maybe a personal problem.

People in ATS are very intelligent people, at least the majority and they will question your motives like they question anybodies motives when it comes to preaching.

You have to understand that you are preaching Mr. Terral.

Mr. Terral are you in a mission from God?