It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Take it to another thread or I'll contact people who can help you.




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Let me ask you this.

What non-scriptural evidence supports pre-trib rapture?

I am not the one with a mental virus. Read what I wrote. If you experience those symptoms YOU need help.

Columbus



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Columbus
There is no point wasting your time discussing pre-trib vs post-trib, rapture vs no-rapture. Christianity is false and all variations are equally false.


There is no point in wasting the time of people having a FRIENDLY discussion with your utterly OFF TOPIC, fairly MEANINGLESS (to the topic) OPINION that ads NOTHING to the friendly conversation now is there?

So let me say this, either start your own thread about your opinion, AD to the conversation or IGNORE the conversation.


Springer...

[edit on 10-18-2006 by Springer]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
that are the epitome of Christian (or any religions') Idealistic aspirations...



No, it's not just any religions viewpoints. Christianity is the only one that says salvation is found in the work that someone else(Jesus) did to remove sin, and faith in that fact brings about redemption.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I think the main issue (other than the fact he has a good portion of the other half of this conversation on ignore) with Terral on this subject is that he has decided that Paul's words are superior to anything Christ says on the subject. And he's admitted that in another thread. He states there are two gospels - Christ's and Paul's - and that Christ's doesn't apply to us, but Paul's does.

So basically Terral has admitted some type of worship of Paul's writings and if that's his belief and he can twist one single statement by Paul to mean there will be a pre-tribulation rapture (and to be quite honest I still can't tell if pre-trib is what Terral is pushing because he's so obtuse it's hard to get clear), then by golly that's what's gonna happen....at least on the planet he lives on.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hi Speaker:

I believe this is the post you are talking about, however, you have taken only sliver from Paul’s teaching that says.


“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.


You are supposed to be providing your explanation of what PAUL is teaching right here to the Corinthians AND the Thessalonians.


Speaker >> Once again, Terral, I will try and give you my view on the whole "rapture" ideology.


Please forgive, but your characterizations of the ‘whole rapture ideology’ has nothing to do with the CHALLENGE on Page 5 (posted on 11-10-2006 at 03:26 PM (post id: 2544490) of my post. Paul is NOT teaching any ‘rapture ideology’ in the above passages. He is teaching the Corinthian and Thessalonian churches about our ‘mystery’ (1Cor. 15:51) “Rapture” (1Thes. 4:17) that includes us being “caught up together with them (the dead) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”


Speaker >> I explained in a previous post that you totally ignored that I see the whole "rapture" as being divine protection from God.[snip off-topic rhetoric]


Paul does not connect our Rapture to protection from anything. He tells the Thessalonians to “lead a quiet life” (1Thes. 4:11) as “your ambition,” just prior to revealing these things to them. There are no warnings about wars and rumors of wars or earthquakes in Paul’s words to the Thessalonians. Paul also tells them to “comfort one another with these words” (1Thes. 4:18) just AFTER giving them these revelations. Are you contending that God is protecting these Thessalonians from living quiet lives and comforting one another? No, because you are inserting the dramatic events of Matthew 24 into Paul’s dissertations for NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER. You think that borrowing context from LaHaye’s Eschatology is a license to characterize Paul’s teaching anyway you wish. The fact that LaHaye is DEAD WRONG changes nothing about what Paul ‘is’ teaching in the passages above.


Speaker >> Paul's quote is a reference to the fact that they would have been just as well to be "lifted into the clouds". The believers will be under God's divine protection and guidance. When they are hungry, they will have food.When they thirst, they will have drink.


Heh . . . “. . . just as well . . .”?? Again, Paul is NOT teaching deliverance from any wars, earthquakes or famines. That is part of ‘your’ rapture ideology that has nothing at all to do with reality.


Speaker >> I have no need for this idea o some mysterious "wisping away," in order to know that God's true people are going to be okay during the coming troubles.[snip ‘fear’ lingo]


Perhaps that is why you choose to ignore Paul’s teaching in a true ‘context,’ according to what he ‘does’ teach on this ‘Rapture’ topic. Christ is describing the END (end of the age = Matt. 24:3+) of the 1000 years “Day of the Lord,” while Paul is describing how that same 1000 year Period WILL BEGIN (comes = 2Thes. 2:2). LaHaye and the ‘pre-trib’ Rapture Theorists are off by just about 1000 years!



Find “Today” in the Mystery/Prophecy Timeline and note we are approaching the “Body Rapture” (1Thes. 4:17) and the “First Resurrection” that STARTS the 1000 Years Day of the Lord. Paul is talking about (1Cor. 15 and 1Thes. 4) about how this 1000 Years STARTS. Christ (Matt. 24) is describing events that only begin 1000 Years LATER at the “end” of the same 1000 Year Period over on the far right hand side shaded in purple. LaHaye and most every Bible commentator on God’s green earth blend the ‘beginning’ and the ‘end’ of this 1000 Years Period together, because they fail to give the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10 = Day of the Lord) a 1000 year (2Pet. 3:8) DURATION. All of your ‘escape’ lingo is for those living at the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+), while Paul’s Rapture took place 1000 Years EARLIER.



Again, find “Today” on the timeline and note that our Rapture (1Thes. 4:16+17) STARTS the 1000 Year Day of the Lord. Satan is chained for the entire 1000 years (Rev. 20:2 = Rev. 1:10), so the devil can be released very near the END of the age prior to the “Great Tribulation” (Matt. 24:21). Everyone taken at Paul’s Rapture will have been with the Lord for the entire 1000 years contained within the “Day of the Lord,” before Satan is even released from the pit. You have made the same mistake as LaHaye by forcing Paul’s Rapture some 1000 Years LATER at the ‘end of the age,’ rather than when that “Day of the Lord” (1Thes. 5:1+2) “COMES” (2Thes. 2:2).

[Continued]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Speaker >> My view on this subject is very much centered around this scripture that I have used several times and I will use again:

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."


Unfortunately for your case, Christ is speaking with reference to the kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) to whom He was about to pass the Holy Spirit baton (Helper = John 16:7) on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1+). Christ could not prophesy to His disciples about Paul’s “mystery is great” (Eph. 5:32) “His BODY” Church (Col. 1:24), because the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) would not even come into existence until after the start of Acts 9! Go back up to the last diagram and note the “Early Rains Bride” is “Cut off” (Rev. 20:4) and that Paul’s “dispensation of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2) where the “Body Matures” (shaded in red) took their place, according to James’ prophecy:


"Simeon has related how God first [red section of diagram] concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people [body of Christ] for His name” . . . “After these things I will return [blue section = Day of the Lord], and I will rebuild the Tabernalce of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and will restore it [restore all things = Matt. 17:10-11, Acts 3:21-26], so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord [gospel of the kingdom = Matt. 24:14 near ‘end of the age’], and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.” Acts 15:14-18.


Christ’s ‘end of the age’ prophecies (Matt. 24) concern those living through this upcoming 1000 Year “Day of the Lord” period that follows this current “mystery” time we are living through today. My explanation of this mystery topic was kicked down to BTS ( www.belowtopsecret.com... ) like every other thread (except this one) with the term “Rapture” in the title.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
See, what I'd just say.


Christ couldn't even prophecy about Paul's "mystery". It's all in the Paul, people.

And apparently, through the verbosity, I have found that Terral and I do agree on when the "rapture" will take place. I just adamantly disagree with how he's coming to that conclusion. Some people need to be involved in a "mystery" in order feel special.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

And here’s the question: If there is to be no Rapture but you believe there will, is that more or less damaging than believing there will be no Rapture but there really is? I mean, one side or the other is incorrect here, no?

We’ll either see the Second Coming in our lifetimes or we won’t. If we don’t, it doesn’t matter to us individually, does it? If we’re here for the Second Coming and expect a Rapture and it doesn’t come, wouldn’t that be worse than not expecting one but it happens anyway?




I believe we will see the second coming. However, the second coming does not require a rapture as a prerequesite.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Valhall:


Valhall >> I think the main issue (other than the fact he has a good portion of the other half of this conversation on ignore) with Terral on this subject is that he has decided that Paul's words are superior to anything Christ says on the subject.


We disagree. The main issue is that so many members feel that “I think” posts offer a great substitute to actually writing commentary on this Bible Topic, because their opinions are superior to anything God has to say. Enough of the “Terral, Terral, Terral” posts and try writing a pair of paragraphs on what Paul is teaching in 1Cor. 15:51-53 and 1Thes. 4:13-17. Paul’s words represent the “Lord’s Commandment” (1Cor. 14:37+38) because his teachings were received through the ‘visions and revelations of the Lord’ (2Cor. 12:1) from Christ IN HEAVEN. God sent Christ to ISRAEL ONLY in the Four Gospels:


‘But He answered and said, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24.


Christ was speaking to His disciples (Matt. 24:3-31) as if this ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) would never exist. Christ’s teachings through Paul (1Cor. 15:51-53, 1Thes. 4:13-17) AFTER his conversion in Acts 9 concern the members of the “body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) gathered by God through “this mystery AMONG THE GENTILES.” Colossians 1:27. Go ahead and try to prove Christ is doing THAT with the Jews in the Four Gospels. GL.

Christ had no reason to tell His kingdom disciples about events related to Paul’s ‘mystery’ church (Eph. 5:32), before any such thing even came into existence. Your statement above is a characterization of my views, which leads up to yet another pathetic grandstanding “I think” session. If you have problems with anything in my interpretations of Scripture, simply “quote them >>” and make a case for something else using Scripture. 2Tim. 2:15.


Valhall still thinking >> And he's admitted that in another thread. He states there are two gospels - Christ's and Paul's - and that Christ's doesn't apply to us, but Paul's does.


You are welcome to head over there and present your ‘one gospel’ theory at your earliest convenience >> www.belowtopsecret.com... . I am no longer responsible for defending those views in this room, because some unnamed person intends on moving all my threads down to BTS. Therefore, knock yourself out, because nobody will read it.


Valhall >> So basically Terral has admitted some type of worship of Paul's writings . . .


Heh . . . basically? Why is it that everyone bearing this ‘scholar’ tag is allowed to carry out these name calling crusades, while making such foolish and ridiculous statements; but if I say one thing three warnings appear by my name in two seconds flat? This place has nothing similar to a ‘level’ playing field, as resident ‘scholars’ (Heh) are given license to trash talk junior members anytime they wish. What has this guy quoted from me and even attempted to show false? He does not even have the courage to place my name atop his ‘flaming’ posts. This kind of behavior allowed to fester within these threads does not find our Mods seated in a very good light. We are to “Worship God” (Rev. 22:9b) who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead (Romans 10:9) on the third day (1Cor. 15:3+4).


Valhall >> . . . and if that's his belief and he can twist one single statement by Paul to mean there will be a pre-tribulation rapture


What utter nonsense. For members to be forced to come out here and defend their ‘person’ against this trash talk is very unfortunate indeed in the presence of eleven Moderators giving their hearty approval. Shame, shame. How would they react if I quoted nothing from Byrd and set out to proclaim he is worshipping something other than our one God? Anyone connecting our mystery (1Cor. 15:51) Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) to ANY event of prophecy in Matthew 24 is DEAD WRONG. Paul is describing how the 1000 Years Day of the Lord (1Thes. 5:1+2) will BEGIN (2Thes. 2:2), while Christ is talking about (Matt. 24) how the same 1000 Years will END.


Valhall >> (and to be quite honest I still can't tell if pre-trib is what Terral is pushing because he's so obtuse it's hard to get clear), then by golly that's what's gonna happen....at least on the planet he lives on.


Nothing in your post contains evidence that you even understand my views on this topic. What did you manage to “quote >>” and show errant using Scripture? Heh . . . Nothing. Your “Dear Terral” love letters are just ‘talk, talk and more off-topic Terral Bashing talk.’ Good luck in this Rapture debate, if you decide to put down those rocks and actually try to prove something from Scripture.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Valhall:


Valhall >> See, what I'd just say.


No, we do not see. Did you read anything from my Rapture Explanation to “quote >>” and show errant in any way using Scripture? No. Here we go again with another “Dear Terral Bashing” love letter.


Valhall >> Christ couldn't even prophecy about Paul's "mystery". It's all in the Paul, people.


Are you debating with ‘people’ or with Terral? Oh, this is yet another Grandstanding “I think” session from one of our resident ‘scholars’ who need not quote anybody or make a single argument for anything from Scripture. All he has to do is keep pumping out these three sentence “Dear Terral” trash posts. What does Scripture say about Christ and Paul’s conversion?


“But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." Acts 9:15+16.


The Lord God chose Moses as the steward over the House of Israel to bring them The Law and Christ chose Paul as the steward over those called into this “dispensation of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2) in the very same way. Does the fact that Peter is the head over the kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) church (Matt. 16:16-19) take away from Christ’s “All authority” (Matt. 28:18) “in heaven and on earth.”?? No. This guy’s characterizations of my views are nowhere near consistent with anything I have actually written here or on many Bible Boards all over the internet. My best guess is this so called ‘scholar’ could not debate any of these Bible topics adequately to save his own soul, which is why he chooses to use this mischaracterization/slander ploy. I look forward to the day that he climbs down off his high horse and actually tries to build a case for anything using God’s Living Word. : 0 )


Valhall >> And apparently, through the verbosity, I have found that Terral and I do agree on when the "rapture" will take place. I just adamantly disagree with how he's coming to that conclusion. Some people need to be involved in a "mystery" in order feel special.


Paul connects this topic to ‘the mystery’ (Eph. 3:3) in 1Corinthians 15:51. You are one out here grandstanding in order to make yourself feel like something you are not. So, you agree with my timing on the Rapture. How did you come to that magnanimous conclusion that our Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) takes place some 1000 Years BEFORE the events of Matthew 24? Please quote something I did say, before going into your next “Dear Terral” love letter bashing mode. GL in the debate,

BTW, I read Valhall's Blog on the Rapture. If she will be so kind as to start a thread using that information, I am more than happy to point out the numerous errors. GL.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral


[edit on 19-10-2006 by Terral]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
What utter nonsense. For members to be forced to come out here and defend their ‘person’ against this trash talk is very unfortunate indeed in the presence of eleven Moderators giving their hearty approval. Shame, shame. How would they react if I quoted nothing from Byrd and set out to proclaim he is worshipping something other than our one God?


I'm still waiting for you to put a name on this god you claim to serve.

If you are such a scholar how come you have such a problem naming your god?




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Sun Matrix:


Sun Matrix >> I'm still waiting for you to put a name on this god you claim to serve. If you are such a scholar how come you have such a problem naming your god?


You have received an answer far too many times already. My God raised His Only Begotten Son from the dead (Romans 10:9) on the third day (1Cor. 15:3+4). He is the “one God” of 1Timothy 2:5. I am sorry if you cannot figure out what that means, but most everyone else understands completely.

The powers that be moved my Trinity thread to SomeWhereElseVille, so I am no longer responsible for defending any of that in this room. Start a thread on your topic. They seem to love topics like: “This Pastor has guts!! Is it true” or “St Michael's velvet-covered breastplate” or “Merry Christmas”. Heh . . . Real ATS stuff . . . what a joke . . . Bummer; your “Am I being paranoid” title is already taken. : 9 (

Oh well, you will think of something.

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I'm still waiting for you to put a name on this god you claim to serve.


That's not a name Terral. That's just something that He did. A NAME .... give Sun Matrix, and the rest of us, a NAME.

What organized religious background did you come from Terral ... 7th day Adventist? Some break off from them ... like David Koresh was?? You claim to be on your own now .. but what roots did all this .. uh ... stuff ... come out of? Did you come up with it all on your own?


Originally posted by Terral
Valhall: Are you debating with ‘people’ or with Terral?


MAN .. that's STILL creepy! You still aren't using pronouns and it still sounds like someone else is talking out of your mouth.




[edit on 10/19/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral

Are you debating with ‘people’ or with Terral? Oh, this is yet another Grandstanding “I think” session from one of our resident ‘scholars’ who need not quote anybody or make a single argument for anything from Scripture. All he has to do is keep pumping out these three sentence “Dear Terral” trash posts. What does Scripture say about Christ and Paul’s conversion?


It's amazing that with you needing to refer to yourself in the multiple not a single one of you have the capability of reading. I have numerous posts on this thread that are on-topic. I've made multiple posts about the error in your manipulation of the referenced scriptures, and you've not once responded to those posts. You're the one running your character limit out and still not saying anything that makes sense, but instead using the majority of those characters to attack any one that doesn't agree with your silliness. I think you're the grandstander.

Now back on topic. Why don't you now respond to the multiple posts made by myself and others in response to your "interpretation".



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Hi Valhall:


Valhall >> It's amazing that with you needing to refer to yourself in the multiple not a single one of you have the capability of reading. I have numerous posts on this thread that are on-topic.


Please include the page and post id numbers, because all I see is chit-chat from you. Also, please start a Rapture thread using your blog information and we can debate those obvious errors.


Valhall >> I've made multiple posts about the error in your manipulation of the referenced scriptures, and you've not once responded to those posts.


Maybe that is why they are all listed in yet another off-topic “Dear Terral” post.


Valhall >> You're the one running your character limit out and still not saying anything that makes sense, but instead using the majority of those characters to attack any one that doesn't agree with your silliness. I think you're the grandstander.


You think? Heh . . .


Valhall >> Now back on topic. Why don't you now respond to the multiple posts made by myself and others in response to your "interpretation".


What posts? Speaker made a request and I answered here (posted on 19-10-2006 at 07:19 AM (post id: 2561361) on Page 9. Should I answer this post of yours that says:


Valhall >> Take it to another thread or I'll contact people who can help you.


What about this one?


Valhall >> Heh. Read LaHaye... that doctrine is all over his writings. He even wrote a book about it! www.armageddonbooks.com...

(no, I haven't read it. I don't care for LaHaye's writing style.)

Well, it's got to be some where other than the scriptures being quoted. Lol


Or this one?


Valhall >> Terral, Since you have me on ignore you won't possibly be able to be all too offended by the following statement:

"No pre-tribulation rapture" members are responding with the correct interpretation of those scriptures...but some kumquat has them on ignore, and/or refuses to read their posts in between his verbose, repetitive and obtuse self-indulgences.


Yes, my name appears in your post, but there is nothing here but Valhall showering herself with the sound of her own words. If anyone on this thread would like any of their posts addressed, then please forward that information ASAP. The U2U system appears to be working fine.

Valhall needs to start that Rapture thread right away, so we can stop misusing this one. Bring it. : 0 )

GL in the debates,

Terral



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Terral, with everything that you have said, you have yet to prove the thread's thesis incorrect. Show me indisputable proof that the "rapture" was conventionally believed in before 1830. Show me. You keep arguing about whether or not the "rapture" will even occur, show me proof that people believed in it before 1830. You have derailed this thread long enough.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I just found this at the following:
www.conservativeonline.org...

Opponents of pretribulationism have often tried to "poison the well" by contending that a pre-tribulation understanding of the Bible is novel and/or has sprung from a polluted source.[1] These opponents insist that pretribulationism was a product of a momentary inspirational outburst. Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear that pretribulationism, like other biblical doctrines, can be demonstrated to have been the product of the normal development of the progress of doctrine in history. The last few years have witnessed the discovery of voices from the Church’s past testifying to a two-stage return of Christ.[2] While it is possible that some have held to some form of a pretribulational rapture throughout the history of the church, another instance of a pre-Darby rapturist has come to light within Evangelicalism. American Baptist pastor, historian, and educator, Morgan Edwards (1722-96), has surfaced to join the chorus of pre-Darby voices who taught a form of pretribulationism



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I have wavered back and forth from pre, mid and post trib raptures and I can argue all three pretty well with scripture. Thne one day it occured to me that i could get hit by a bus and thats my rapture. Where ever I am spiritually at that moment is where i will be eternally. I have read terrel and vahalla and both you guys or gals are very knowlegable and it kinda pains me to see you two who both are obviously believers going at each other like you are. Does it really matter wich one is right? Terrel you take offense way too easily and I dont mean that as a dig but it is an undercurring theme in your threads.

Oh and to post something on topic i believe the rapture was taught WAY earlier than 1800's but i cant prove it so ill shut up now.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Hi Speaker:

You asked for a reply to your post and received that reply here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But now that is not good enough. Fine.


Speaker >> Terral, with everything that you have said, you have yet to prove the thread's thesis incorrect. Show me indisputable proof that the "rapture" was conventionally believed in before 1830. Show me.


Your Opening Post was answered here almost line by line:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you did not have a reply. Please explain why I should offer another line by line reply, when you have not bothered to answer to my first reply on page one under your OP?


Speaker >. You keep arguing about whether or not the "rapture" will even occur, show me proof that people believed in it before 1830. You have derailed this thread long enough.


Now that is going too far. I cannot get a long list of your friends here to give their commentary on the two passages where Paul describes our Rapture (1Cor. 15:51-53, 1Cor. 4:13-17), but your OP has been answered already. Valhall, on the other hand, quoted nothing from your OP thesis and pasted her blog on the second page (posted on 8-10-2006 at 11:46 AM (post id: 2537398). Should I misuse your thread by pasting blogs?

The premise of your OP is not only false, but there is no evidence in your post that proves anything. You have no ability to document what every ‘church’ for the past 2000 years has understood on this “Rapture” Topic to be making such wild claims. I have shown you where Paul is teaching a ‘Rapture’ (1Thes. 4:17) to these Corinthians and Thessalonians. We should understand that all of these NT letters were copied over and over again to be circulated among the people of the entire KNOWN WORLD (Romans 1:8). Paul used his captivity in Rome and the Praetorian Guard (Phil. 1:13) to carry his letters everywhere. These churches of the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc. are only ‘representative’ churches to receive letters from the Apostle Paul on these topics. Do we see letters to the Macedonians (Phil. 4:15) or the “Laodiceans” (Col. 4:16) or the church at “Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1)? Paul taught the disciples at Antioch for over a year (Acts 11:26), but where are the letters containing his teachings to churches in that region? Your thesis says:


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


And your Opening Post contains not a single verse of God’s Living Word. Therefore, you excluded the very ‘churches’ that Paul is seen teaching this same ‘Rapture’ Ideology that LaHaye refers to in 1Thessalonians 4:17. Your “Latin Vulgate” reference is negated by the fact that those flaws corrupted the ‘Great Bible’ “rather than the original languages.” en.wikipedia.org...


“By the time Elizabeth I took the throne, the flaws of the Great Bible were apparent; those parts of it not translated by Tyndale were translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original languages. In 1568 the established church responded with the Bishops' Bible, but their version failed to displace the Geneva version as the most popular English version.”


In other words, your premise that “Rapture” is taken from the Latin has nothing at all to do with what Paul is teaching in 1Thessalonians 4:17. We gather that directly from “Harpazo” (#726) that appeared in the Greek from the very beginning. The original churches receiving Paul’s Epistles did not see “caught up” or any Latin word, but they saw Harpazo! Therefore, another error of your thesis was to develop your premise around your own mental image of what a Roman Catholic Denomination might see in ‘their’ Latin Vulgate many centuries LATER. Another false assumption is that the early churches required ‘translators’ to translate terms from Greek to Latin into something else, when Greek was the language of commerce for the entire known world. That is why Paul could write the Romans in Greek to confidently say,


“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” Romans 1:8.


However, even if a local church required a scholar to translate Paul’s Epistles into their native tongue, that had no bearing whatsoever on the ‘Harpazo’ teaching penned by Paul from the very beginning. Your “Rapture” Thread is the only one of its kind on the first ten pages of this ATS room. Do you know why? Because, someone is systematically removing all of them (including mine), but yours casts a shadow on the Rapture teaching itself. That is why I am encouraging Valhall to start a Rapture Thread in here, because that somebody might allow hers to remain also.

If you wish to answer my posts to you standing on this thread, then I will give you a thoughtful reply.

God bless you,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral




top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join