Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

Originally posted 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?

They do mean something to me, but they mean other things.
You seem to be so wrapped up in the Rapture-centric interpretations of these parables as to be completely unconscious that other interpretations can exist, or that these other interpretations held sway for the best part of two thousand years before the Rapture theorists came along with more abstruse and esoteric interpretations.
Your approach seems to be the product of controlling indoctrination from one school of thought, which gave you no access to other lines of approach.
A more detailed response will have to wait until I've double-checked a few textbooks on these parables.

And who on earth is Dewey?

reply to post by SimonPeter

. . . Strong delusion . . .

That's in 2 Tim. so best ignored since that book is a forgery written after Paul had died.

reply to post by SimonPeter

"The passage in 2 Thessalonians is talking about the teachings and deceptions of the "lawless one" who sets himself in place of God, and the "strong delusion" seems to be part of this theme.
He normally gets identified with the "Beast" in Revelation.
So I suggest that when we know what the Beast is, we will know what the "strong delusion" is, because they go together.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

For example, for the last two thousand years people have been perfectly content to interpret the parable of the Virgins in terms of the Parousia, the final Return of Christ, and the need for faith in waiting for that event.
They've always been regarded as the same event; it's not at all self-evident that they should be treated as different events.
Your line of attack seems to be to quote a basket-full of passages traditionally understood as relating to the Parousia, and to say "See, this proves the Rapture". It doesn't do anything of the kind.

reply to post by DISRAELI

. . . seems to be part of this theme . . .

The "theme" I see is late, forged books (2 thess, & 2 Tim.) hyping up a future apocalypse for a great eschatological show-down.
Whatever certain people were expecting did not happen, and were not satisfied with the destruction of Jerusalem as such an event, so they created a new spectacular finale.
I have to take it as a loss of faith in the promises of never dying, and became desperate after they had seen so many people die, and did not see Jesus as literally fulfilling things.
Jesus separates his version from the eschatological version of resurrection, in John 11:24-25.
Martha gives the eschatological version of resurrection in verse 24, and Jesus gives his version in verse 25.
Apparently, once the Apostles were no longer around, writers took it upon themselves to reverse what Jesus did, and reverted back to a Jewish "Last Day" type scenario where the dead are raised.
In 1 Thess. 4, which was actually written by Paul, the people who had died, Jesus brings along with him.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also we believe that God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep as Christians.

This says, God, so, this would be the Last Day, but the people who "went to sleep" are already alive and since they "died in Christ" were never "really" dead. Some people will be still alive but it is practically irrelevant by that time. A "Last Day" event was something people believed in but Jesus (nor, apparently, Paul) never felt obligated to refute.

reply to post by DISRAELI

I do believe that Zachariah chapters 13 and 14 relates to the near destruction of Israel. The Antichrist would likely bring his false peace and make way for the construction of the Temple . Many of the Christian I know will not accept that God will not give Israel the victory in all of their battles . When the Antichrist so to speak saves Israel from total destruction he will be touted as the savior of Israel and there will be those that are familiar with the Word will believe that he must be Jesus because he saved Israel and the unrighteous will fall in line . Those that love the Lord and are looking for his return will know who he is. Jesus gave us a lot of information about what we should be looking for and and I'm looking at a lot of ominous things on the horizon .
.

reply to post by DISRAELI

In the parable of the Ten Virgins I wonder that Jesus could be speaking to the verse Matthew 24 verse 13 concerning .
The Foolish Virgins were not prepared to endure . You might say pre tribbers
The Wise Virgins prepared to endure as long as necessary . You might say Mid to Post Trib .

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wow that's absurd, if you knew anything about how security clearances work if they don't have one high enough they won't know, if they do have one high enough to know they will not tell you.

So you don't think they would have heard of underground bases in Kentucky if they don't have a high enough clearance? That's interesting, especially if civilians have heard of them. Why wouldn't military have heard of them?

Originally posted by autowrench
I will provide some links, perhaps you are not alone in wanting information on DUMBs?

Phil Schneider's lecture of 1995

Secret Underground Bases and Facilities

DEEP UNDERGROUND MILITARY BASES IN AMERICA

Nuclear powered tunnelling machines

None of those mention Kentucky.

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

I lived on the mission field for over 2 years with drug addicts. Never once did I see a demon possessed person, and I lived with hundreds of different ones.

Originally posted by Hydroman

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

I lived on the mission field for over 2 years with drug addicts. Never once did I see a demon possessed person, and I lived with hundreds of different ones.

I can answer that REALLY quickly, where did you go to? Which nation or nations?

Originally posted by DISRAELI

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.

How do you explain away the doctrine of immanency? That we are to expect Him at any time? Paul did, the apostolic fathers and antenicean fathers did. How do you explain away their expectant return?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wow that's absurd, if you knew anything about how security clearances work if they don't have one high enough they won't know, if they do have one high enough to know they will not tell you.

So you don't think they would have heard of underground bases in Kentucky if they don't have a high enough clearance? That's interesting, especially if civilians have heard of them. Why wouldn't military have heard of them?

If they don't have one high enough they'll know about as much as your average internet goon. We know of a few of these things from my military days, but just as storage facilities. I had a top secret clearance for 1 switch in the cockpit of my jet. Just 1 switch. But I never had clearance for things above my own clearance level.

And I didn't say that they may have never heard of them. I said if they have the clearance to give you info about them they will not. That's treason to divulge classified information to a person not of the same clearance level.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
How do you explain away the doctrine of immanency? That we are to expect Him at any time?

I would deal with the "imminent return" idea by treating it less legalistically.
("Immanence" is something different, but I'll postpone that to a second response)

Once again, my justification for not treating it as an absolute is the example of Paul.
In 2 Thessalonians ch2, he is addressing people being troubled by the teaching that the day of the Lord has already come. Apparently something like the excitement of Rapture expectation, but worse.
He deals with it by telling them in v3 that the day of the Lord will not come "unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed".
You see what he is doing here?
He is saying that Christ will not return until something else has happened first- precisely the kind of statement which you believe to be in conflict with the expectation of imminent return.

You may try to get around that verse by saying that the "man of lawlessness" has indeed already arrived. I suspect you may belong to the school of thought which would place the man of lawlessness in the Vatican.

No matter. The key point, for the purpose of this discussion, is establishing that statements in the form "Something needs to happen before Christ returns" are legitimate. Paul can use them ,so we can use them, without contradicting the basic expectation.
Even in Paul's teaching, the expectation of imminent retrun is qualified, not absolute.

As for the ante-Nicene fathers, they would not have been waiting for the great tribulation because they were already living in one. For that whole of that period, there was a chronic state of persecution. The question of "waiting for the tribulation" would not have arisen.
In fact, if you think about it, no Christian from the time of Nero to the time of Diocletian could have held a "Pre-trib" doctrine. Once the Tribulation has already started (as it had done, from their viewpoint), the "Pre-trib" option is closed off, isn't it?
Only in the comparative freedom from persecution since the battle of Milvian Bridge could we have the luxury of expecting tribulation to be in the future..

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I hope you don't think I'm being picky, but discussing this point is necessary for the sake of clarity.
All the way through this thread you've been talking about the "doctrine of immanence"- but I think you mean "imminence"

The difference between the two, approximately, is that "imminence" is about closeness in time, while "immanence" is about closeness of location.
In my Concise Oxford;
Imminent; "Impending, soon to happen"
Immanent; "Indwelling, inherent, permanently pervading the universe"

I responded to you in terms of "imminence, closeness in time", because that's what you seemed to be talking about. (good interpretation means understanding a word from its context)

But when theologians talk about the importance of the Doctrine of Immanance, they mean the second one, that God pervades the universe.
In orthodox theology, this needs to be coupled with and balanced against the Doctrine of Transcendance- ie that God is not limited by the universe.
(The fault of the "God is the universe" people is focussing on the Immanence and ignoring the Transcendance)

reply to post by Anthony2

In the Lord's Prayer, we are asked to pray for God's Kingdom to come and His will to be done ... as in Heaven, which I take to mean the state of things described at the end of Revelation. However, later on in the Lord's Prayer we are asked to pray "Lead us not into the time of trial (or that is one translation anyway) but deliver us from evil". Well, how can we get to the point at the end of Revelation without going through the tribulations described earlier in the book, unless we are somehow lifted out of them?

The existence of the temple cult in Jerusalem was the hindrance to God's kingdom becoming fully actualized on Earth.
There seems to have been two different but concurrent ideas of what the "Last Day" or "The Day Of the Lord" would be, one being a day of darkness and judgment, and one being a bright day of everything being as it should be. Since Jesus, things have been well for those who believe in Jesus, in heaven that is. The way I am looking at this whole thing right now, that dark day of judgment came down as predicted but not in the way a lot of people interpreted it. What I mean is that they saw their adherence to what they believed were the traditions given to them by God as being what would force the hand of God to approve them and the new good condition of the world would be further implemented by themselves as the ruling nation on earth.
What actually occurred was the destruction of their temple they had expected to propel them through their foreseen destiny, thus dashing their hopes to be the de facto kings of the world. Revelation could be describing someone's take on that event, and the tribulation was what happened at the fall of Jerusalem. In his enthusiasm for retribution for what he saw as an injustice, the writer of Revelation compressed time so that the second concept of the Day of the Lord came on the heels of the actual judgement to make a replay where the instrument of the Judgment of Jerusalem is itself judged and thoroughly destroyed. Then Jerusalem is replaced by a new one, then things (according to this view exemplified by Revelation) can continue on as planned by the people who saw their own existence as key to the world's future.
The more enjoyable version of the Day of the Lord, is more like the culmination of a lot of factors involved in everyone coming to know Christ, and living lives in such a way as to benefit the world to be a good place, then God can come to earth along with Jesus and the people who had formerly lived here on this planet but had been taken to heaven. Whoever happens to be around on that day will be welcoming the return of God and Jesus and they well be taken in, in turn, by God and Jesus, then the Kingdom will have come on earth in a form where God is physically present .

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't agree with you . But The words of Jesus tells us that the supposed Rapture does not come as those of 1st Thess. suppose . The words of Jesus in Matthew 24 verse 29 authenticate 2nd Thess chapter 2 .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Can you be more specific about any of that?
You are making some very general statements and gives me nothing to work with.
It doesn't seem to be saying anything other than something like, "whatever you said, then, no".

reply to post by jmdewey60


How have you come about to believe that 2nd Thess . and Timothy are forged ? Matthew 24 was no doubt written after Jesus died as a testament to his works and teachings . Matthew , Daniel ,Ezekiel Zachariah Revelations all talk about the apocalypse .
You seem to have spent time trying to pick apart the word of God . How can you know when the book of 2nd Thess. was written . Or exactly when Paul died .I wonder if soon you will find that there are contradictions throughout the bible and start looking elsewhere for divine guidance like so many experts I have known . The fact is that we can now see much of what Paul told of in 2nd Thess. coming into reality . The Jews are going to rebuild the Temple , the NWO will be implementing the world -e money- system called the Mark of the Beast and people will Fall Away taking the mark to keep to be able to buy sell and trade .And when the Temple is finished the Antichrist will seek the seat at the head of all power . Gods seat .
Are you a Preterist?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Put your microscope away and just read .