Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Yes, all these passages refer to the Return of Christ.
And the Return of Christ comes at "the end of the age".
That is where Paul places the "being caught up".
As I've been saying all along, the debate is about the timing.
The doctrine which I'm disputing is that the saints will be caught up BEFORE the Return of Christ.
So I'm not denying the hope you express at the end of your post.
Yes, we look forward to seeing the coming of Christ, but we expect to see it at the same time as everybody else does- at the end of Revelation, not at the beginning.

edit on 17-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I'm not so sure. John sees those who come out of great tribulation. The unwise virgins had the door shut to them but later they also came. As we see, some are saved with compassion and some as by fire. One day Christ comes like a thief, like a bolt of lightning. On another day he comes with the Father bringing fire and the sword of his mouth. In the letters to the 7 churches we see the first three talking to those who die before Christ coming, Thyatira who is told to hold fast til he comes, Sardis is given the white robe which is what the martyrs are wearing elsewhere, Philadelphia are the 144000, and the Laodiceans are the lukewarm who are counseled to buy of Christ gold tried in fire and are given "white robes."

I honestly see very clear, distinct groups and timings here.

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I'm not so sure. John sees those who come out of great tribulation.

This implies that they've been through it. That's why they're welcomed with such honour.

One day Christ comes like a thief, like a bolt of lightning. On another day he comes with the Father bringing fire and the sword of his mouth.

In both cases he comes suddenly and with power. Why distinguish? Different descriptions of the same event.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I'm not so sure. John sees those who come out of great tribulation.

This implies that they've been through it. That's why they're welcomed with such honour.

One day Christ comes like a thief, like a bolt of lightning. On another day he comes with the Father bringing fire and the sword of his mouth.

In both cases he comes suddenly and with power. Why distinguish? Different descriptions of the same event.

edit on 17-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

No, he doesn't come with power during the time he comes like a thief. And only once does He come with the Father.

I also added this after your reply so here it is again: In the letters to the 7 churches we see the first three talking to those who die before Christ coming, Thyatira who is told to hold fast til he comes, Sardis is given the white robe which is what the martyrs are wearing elsewhere, Philadelphia are the 144000, and the Laodiceans are the lukewarm who are counseled to buy of Christ gold tried in fire and are given "white robes."

Again, there is clearly a division.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

"I come like a thief" is stated in Revelation ch 16 v15; it can only relate to the coming of Christ a couple of chapters later, which is a coming with power.
In 1 Thessalonians ch5, we are told that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night", and immediately afterwards Paul is talking about the "sudden destruction".
There's no distinction there between "like a thief" and "in power". "Like a thief" simply means that it is happening suddenly and unexpectedly.

Interpretations of the letters to the seven churches can be very arbitrary, so they don't give any certain information.
The starting point for understanding them should be to relate them to the specific churches which were suffering in John's time.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The doctrine which I'm disputing is that the saints will be caught up BEFORE the Return of Christ.

You have got to study the differences between Israeology and Ekklesiology. All in the body of Christ are saints, however NOT all saints are members of the body of Christ. That's your nugget to consider when you embark on your study. Accept it with readiness of mind in the spirit of Acts 17:11 and study yourself. See if anyone in the Bible OT are called "elect", and see if anyone in Revelation are called "saints" that aren't in the body of Christ.

I'm saying this in all love of the Spirit, your Israelology and Ekklesiology are mangled into one doctrine. We are in the "church era" which was hidden from the eyes of the OT prophets. That would include Daniel who gave the "70 weeks" prophecy for the nation of Israel. The entire purpose for the GT is for the nation of Israel to be drawn to their Messiah, He will not return (to Earth to rule and reign from the throne of David) until they do and call upon Him. (Hosea 5:15)

Study and pray. And ask any Qs you wish and I'll be more than happy to respond.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

"I come like a thief" is stated in Revelation ch 16 v15; it can only relate to the coming of Christ a couple of chapters later, which is a coming with power.
In 1 Thessalonians ch5, we are told that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night", and immediately afterwards Paul is talking about the "sudden destruction".
There's no distinction there between "like a thief" and "in power". "Like a thief" simply means that it is happening suddenly and unexpectedly.

Interpretations of the letters to the seven churches can be very arbitrary, so they don't give any certain information.
The starting point for understanding them should be to relate them to the specific churches which were suffering in John's time.

It also says He ONLY comes as a thief to those not looking for Him. It doesn't apply to those who ARE looking and the text says this. (Think about the 10 virgins and the strong-man parables.)

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

John sees those who come out of great tribulation.

Yes, Jews who return to their Messiah and who are persecuted by the AC would then be "saints", and would also have been "elect" before the foundation of the world, and they will come out of the GT.

All apply to a nation that seeks their Messiah during the persecutions (Hosea 5:15). Not all saints are members of the Body, yet all members of the Body are saints.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I would wait for specific examples.
At the moment, I see no reason to understand 1 Thessalonians as anything other than the public event.
Paul does not mention a later one.

Sure, I'll talk about this until the cows come home, however I need to leave now for a funeral out of town. Take a peek at Chuck Missler's rapture and tribulation teachings on youtube, (easier than reading the books), or ones from Perry Stone. (In the spirit of Acts 17:11) At least you can know where I'm coming from exactly even if your study leads you in the other direction, at least you'll understand me. I know your struggle, I came from your camp friend.

With Love,

nuT

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It also says He ONLY comes as a thief to those not looking for Him. It doesn't apply to those who ARE looking and the text says this. (Think about the 10 virgins and the strong-man parables.)

This doesn't affect the point at issue.
He comes once, suddenly- which is a shock to those who are not expecting it, and not a shock to those who are.
That isn't a reason for a theory that he comes twice.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

"I come like a thief" is stated in Revelation ch 16 v15; it can only relate to the coming of Christ a couple of chapters later, which is a coming with power.
In 1 Thessalonians ch5, we are told that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night", and immediately afterwards Paul is talking about the "sudden destruction".
There's no distinction there between "like a thief" and "in power". "Like a thief" simply means that it is happening suddenyt and unexpectedly.

I think Matthew makes it clear in chapter 24 that our Lord does come quickly, but not unexpectedly, and where the bodies are there will be the eagles,.....and then immediately after the tribulation of those days (not great tribulation) the sign of the son of man shall appear in the heavens and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn (bc they missed it). v27-30

In 31 speaks to his return as referenced elsewhere in power when he gathers together the "elect" the 144000 who if it were possible might even be deceived by the lying miracles of the beast.

The marriage feast is very important because it is a special party, so to speak, that happens before Christ begins his rule as king.

I know parables aren't clear but we cannot discount the virgins or the marriage feast or those who come without a wedding garment. Think about it before you discredit it.

Interpretations of the letters to the seven churches can be very arbitrary, so they don't give any certain information.
The starting point for understanding them should be to relate them to the specific churches which were suffering in John's time.

[

edit on 17-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Again, if you'll look at the grammar and tenses and the people as literal and spiritual.....

I'll skip the first two for now but Pergamos speaks of "even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr." All three are clearly not talking to those who are present at his coming but Thyatira, church 4 is. Then again Sardis is given "white robes" and Philadelphia speaks of the synagogue of satan bowing at their feet which would be the 144000 elect. Finally we have Laodicea which is lukewarm and has to be tried by fire as of which John saw a great multitude.

Thyatira are those who were watching, those wise virgins who were invited to the marriage feast while the rest is being fulfilled in its time.

I can't stress this enough to you but you don't have to see it or believe it. I wish you would, and wish you would watch with me but I can't make you understand. Those churches aren't just physical churches in the days of John but spiritual churches which are different generations of believers through time.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

John sees those who come out of great tribulation.

Yes, Jews who return to their Messiah and who are persecuted by the AC would then be "saints", and would also have been "elect" before the foundation of the world, and they will come out of the GT.

All apply to a nation that seeks their Messiah during the persecutions (Hosea 5:15). Not all saints are members of the Body, yet all members of the Body are saints.

I don't find "elect" to always be synonymous with "saint" which is where I part with the dogma. There are 12000 virgins of each tribe of Israel that are sealed and cannot be hurt during a period of time during the great tribulation although yes they are killed after a certain time but they are the elect that "if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived."

The way I understand "saint" is one who is physically dead from this physical but died in faith. We who are alive are not regarded as saints in any scripture that I can find. Therefor all who are saints are of the body, all who will eventually be accounted as a saint may not yet be a part but they will be. That's just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I think Matthew makes it clear in chapter 24 that our Lord does come quickly, but not unexpectedly

The whole point of the parable of "the householder not knowing when the thief would come" is that the event is unexpected (by those who are not watching)

the sign of the son of man shall appear in the heavens and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn (bc they missed it). v27-30

They are mourning because he has arrived. That is clear from the fact that they are seeing "the Son of Man coming" in the very same verse.
They see it as a reason for mourning because they recognise him as someone they have injured, and are remorseful and/or fearful of the consequences. That is clear from Revelation ch1 v7 ("every eye shall see him, every one who pierced him"), and its model in Zechariah ch 12 v10 ("when they look on him who they have pierced, they shall mourn for him")

In 31 speaks to his return as referenced elsewhere in power when he gathers together the "elect" the 144000 who if it were possible might even be deceived by the lying miracles of the beast.

Alternatively, this is part of the process of the judgement at his Return

I know parables aren't clear but we cannot discount the virgins or the marriage feast or those who come without a wedding garment. Think about it before you discredit it.

These parables have perfectly respectable interpretations that don't involve Jesus returning twice.

I wish you would watch with me

Of course I am watching, and expect to see the event at the same time as everybody else does

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Children can be possessed by demons. Go on a mission trip sometime.

Don't need to. I have a good friend named Lex, old Army buddy. He runs a Children's Orphanage for girls in Niger. He tells me tales of Christian missionaries who come around, how they will point a a sick child, or one having a seizure and say, "demon possessed." He also tells me of rapes by missionaries, and that some of them steal supplies from the trucks before they reach the Orphanage. Lex has seen first hand on how these missionaries act.
The only ones who ever get possessed are the Devout Fundamentalists. Long as one is neither of those, no worries. Care to tell me who most books on Demonology were written by Church Scribes? Care to tell me who Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, and Atheists never get possessed?

And truthfully, I was not even talking about possession. I was talking about Christian Ministers calling little children Witches. Big glaring difference.

reply to post by DISRAELI


When Christ comes as a thief he meant he comes unannounced ahead of time . Jesus said when he comes he will come as the lighting out of the East to the West . He said every eye shall see him even those that pierced him . Jesus is not a slip thief . He enters through the front door like your parents coming home unexpectedly while you as a teen was holding that beer party . All that needs to be done can be done at that time . The false doctrine that caused Paul to write the letter to the church in 2nd Thessalonians 2 is a doctrine of the flesh and serves only the flesh. It appointed to every man to die the first death .You will be changed in the twinkling of an eye . Your corruptible body will not enter heaven . The only 2 people who have not died ,Eiljiah and Enock will die in Jerusalem . God did say that he would send a strong delusion . Pre Trib might be it .How many will lose faith thinking found not worthy of the Rapture .

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I think Matthew makes it clear in chapter 24 that our Lord does come quickly, but not unexpectedly

The whole point of the parable of "the householder not knowing when the thief would come" is that the event is unexpected (by those who are not watching)

Agreed. Now we must decide whether we are of those faithful unto watching in expectation or are we of those who will miss it because we aren't looking? If it comes later as you propose at a time when every eye will see and every knee will bow then it is no more missing or not missing.

Don't you see the evidence of the difference in the very fact that you acknowledge that some will miss it?

the sign of the son of man shall appear in the heavens and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn (bc they missed it). v27-30

They are mourning because he has arrived. That is clear from the fact that they are seeing "the Son of Man coming" in the very same verse.

Unless all Christians are gone (whether looking or not) then a present Christian won't mourn at "seeing his sign" (not seeing him) in the heavens unless in their spirit they know (as is in context) he has already passed. They weren't expecting.

In 31 speaks to his return as referenced elsewhere in power when he gathers together the "elect" the 144000 who if it were possible might even be deceived by the lying miracles of the beast.

Alternatively, this is part of the process of the judgement at his Return

All things in His time.

I know parables aren't clear but we cannot discount the virgins or the marriage feast or those who come without a wedding garment. Think about it before you discredit it.

These parables have perfectly respectable interpretations that don't involve Jesus returning twice.

What is the perfectly respectable interpretation of the marriage feast and the parable of the virgins apart from Christ coming for those who are looking to invite them to the marriage feast of the Bride (the new Jerusalem) which the first invited (jews) refuse?

I wish you would watch with me

Of course I am watching, and expect to see the event at the same time as everybody else does

Everybody else isn't expecting it to be at the end of the tribulation. Where is Thyatira if all Christians are left as the edges and corners to feed the people? (Ruth, Boaz, kinsman redeemer, harvest)

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
Agreed. Now we must decide whether we are of those faithful unto watching in expectation or are we of those who will miss it because we aren't looking? If it comes later as you propose at a time when every eye will see and every knee will bow then it is no more missing or not missing.

You are coming very close to saying that people who are not expecting the Rapture will not experience it- in other words, you imply that belief in it is one of the essentials of saving faith.
If God had intended this teaching to be one of the condistions of saving faith, he would have expressed it more clearly.
What makes the difference between the two kinds of people is how well they are prepared.
As Revelation ch16 puts it, are they "clothed" or "naked" when the alarm bell sounds?
Surely the difference is about whether they have or have not "put on Christ".
God is not going to assess people on whether they do or do not believe in the "Rapture" teaching, any more than he is going to condemn them for not expecting him to return on a specific date, because these are not matters of saving faith.

Unless all Christians are gone (whether looking or not) then a present Christian won't mourn at "seeing his sign" (not seeing him) in the heavens unless in their spirit they know (as is in context) he has already passed.

The "mourning" is the prevailing response of the world at large. It doesn't mean that there are no exceptions, just because they're not mentioned. If they are a minority, part of the reason will be that the persecution has killed off most of them, judging from the descriptions in Revelation.

What is the perfectly respectable interpretation of the marriage feast and the parable of the virgins apart from Christ coming for those who are looking to invite them to the marriage feast of the Bride (the new Jerusalem) which the first invited (jews) refuse?

Quite. So the Jews refuse the gospel, and the apostles take it to the Gentiles, as described in Acts. What does this have to do with Jesus returning twice?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
. God did say that he would send a strong delusion . Pre Trib might be it .How many will lose faith thinking found not worthy of the Rapture .

I think the main danger of loss of faith is when people link it to a predicted date, and nothing happens.
Of course this can be a delusion without being THE delusion.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
Agreed. Now we must decide whether we are of those faithful unto watching in expectation or are we of those who will miss it because we aren't looking? If it comes later as you propose at a time when every eye will see and every knee will bow then it is no more missing or not missing.

You are coming very close to saying that people who are not expecting the Rapture will not experience it- in other words, you imply that belief in it is one of the essentials of saving faith. If God had intended this teaching to be one of the condistions of saving faith, he would have expressed it more clearly.

No, see what you are doing is equating the rapture with the entirety of salvation. Both sets of virgins have oil (holy spirit) but only half have the faith unto watching and waiting for the harpazo.

Not all are invited to the marriage feast bu the neither are those that are invited the culmination of all that are to be saved and that should be clear from all I've said prior to this. You're just being willfully ignorant now.

What makes the difference between the two kinds of people is how well they are prepared.

The wise virgins were prepared with an extra crux of oil and were waiting on Christ to come in the midnight hour while the others were out trying to get some more oil to light their lamps. They simply didn't have the faith in layman's terms.

As Revelation ch16 puts it, are they "clothed" or "naked" when the alarm bell sounds?

By chapter 16 we are talking about Laodicea or rather those who are going through great tribulation but who knows, perhaps there is some truth to a pre and mid tribulation rapture both. Nevertheless, Chapter 16 is during a time the vials of God's wrath are being poured out and His people are not reserved for wrath. Take it how you will.

Surely the difference is about whether they have or have not "put on Christ".

It is, but again this is a people going through the vials of the Father's wrath. Read 16 and how these people treat the Father for their suffering. These are not those who trust in Him.

God is not going to assess people on whether they do or do not believe in the "Rapture" teaching, any more than he is going to condemn them for expecting him to return on a specific date, because these are not matters of saving fait mourning because he has arrived. That is clear from the fact that they are seeing "the Son of Man coming" in the very same verse.

Being invited to the marriage feast is a matter of believing unto watching for it. Again, the Rapture is not the entirety of salvation. That should be clear by now. And they see the sign of his "having come" in the heavens, they don't see him. He is coming again later though With the Father but now has come the time when "white robes" are being handed out to the faithful martyrs who refuse to worship the beast or take his mark.

Unless all Christians are gone (whether looking or not) then a present Christian won't mourn at "seeing his sign" (not seeing him) in the heavens unless in their spirit they know (as is in context) he has already passed.

The "mourning" is the prevailing response of the world at large. It doesn't mean that there are no exceptions, just because they're not mentioned. If they are a minority, part of the reason will be that the persecution has killed off most of them, judging from the descriptions in Revelation.

Those Christians left are mourning in Spirit, and those others are Yes, mourning for fear. Nevertheless, once again, they see his sign in the heavens not him. The unwise vrigins know what just happened and the fearful know what is coming. It is a sign to both parties.

What is the perfectly respectable interpretation of the marriage feast and the parable of the virgins apart from Christ coming for those who are looking to invite them to the marriage feast of the Bride (the new Jerusalem) which the first invited (jews) refuse?

Quite. So the Jews refuse the gospel, and the apostles take it to the Gentiles, as described in Acts. What does this have to do with Jesus returning twice?

Dewey it's the marriage feast! Have you not read that those who come in without a wedding garment will be cast out? Does the parable of the virgins or matthew 24 mean nothing to you? Come on His return for to invite those wise virgins is not the same return as when He comes with the Father in the clouds, on a white horse clothed in scarlet coming to slay the evil one with the spirit of his mouth and brightness of his coming.

The events are evidently and very clearly not one and the same.

reply to post by DISRAELI


What are your thoughts on the Strong delusion God will send . I thought it could be when Naked Archeologist said he had found the bones of Jesus 2 years ago . I found it hard to believe that his fellow scientist laughed and scorned him . That's not characteristic of the anti God group .

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Dewey it's the marriage feast! Have you not read that those who come in without a wedding garment will be cast out? Does the parable of the virgins or matthew 24 mean nothing to you? Come on His return for to invite those wise virgins is not the same return as when He comes with the Father in the clouds, on a white horse clothed in scarlet coming to slay the evil one with the spirit of his mouth and brightness of his coming.

You are mixing things up as if by confusion you can bring some sort of clarity from it.
The Parables in the Gospel are about Jesus' first coming to earth by way of being born here.
The Jews were waiting for their Messiah, and missed him.
They are not about a second coming.