Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

reply to post by Hydroman

I have seen Evangelist in Western Media do their casting out of demons.

The donations that roll in as a result more than make up for the salary of the actor.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Again, that was done in 1948 long before my time. I support their right to be there and their return in peace, not the right to murder people in order to do so.

Which is what they counted on, that people would believe all their propaganda long enough to where once people realize it was all lies, people would have fallen into a state of complacency , telling themselves it is a "done deal" and just accept it, and, "nothing we can do about it now, since they are already there".
In order for there to be a "return" they would have had to have been there previously, to start with, which is not the case. Evidence shows that they were never their in the first place, including their ancestors, back from before the mythological Moses would have been around.
Their methodology was never peaceful and that goes back to the exploits of "Laurence of Arabia" doing terrorist attacks on the government of the region. It has been a bloody methodology from day one, and including every day that passes now.
Your cult religion was designed and put into place through the agent of imperialism, J.N. Darby, and then his theories had been promoted with serious financial backing from then on, to indoctrinate evangelical Christians into this "don't care" attitude long enough to thoroughly entrench themselves to where they can not easily be removed.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Except that the unwise virgins are told to watch for the coming of the Son of Man but why would Jesus tell them that if the only Parousia to happen is gone?

The unwise virgins would have been the authorities of the religion connected directly or indirectly to the temple cult of Jerusalem. They had a superficial understanding of the prophecies of the coming of the Lord. The wise virgins would have been the people connected with the ceremonial religion cult practices of Jerusalem, as participants, probably more than the ones who were more or less "on the payroll" of the temple institution. They would have been there in a worshipful posture and were open to the experience of witnessing the power of God working through Jesus and would have accepted him into their souls, and then spiritually entered into "The Kingdom".
The unwise virgins would have, after the fact (the crucifixion) cast about to see if they could somehow come to a conviction one way or another to allow themselves to become open to the Christ spirit by seeing the truth of God through the life and works of Jesus. They did not reach that conclusion within their allotted time, so the opportunity came and went, with the result of being cast out, and that is cast out of the city, just as they had done to Jesus by hanging him on a stake outside the city walls. The ones who had not accepted The Lord, lost even the walls themselves after the city was besieged and captured by the Roman legions in 70 AD.
So "the Parousia" or the "coming" was this event in the parable, if you see it as such, of the virgins awaiting the Bridegroom. The bridegroom tarried, and then came in a spiritual way to his bride, which was the church. This was the leaving behind to the mourning in the outer darkness for those who were to greet him and did not.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

I can only tell you about what I've read in KJV scripture.

Funny how you came up with exactly the same understanding that Darby did, who had to basically cloister himself up for ten years to work on his theory, then coming up with an original interpretation, that somehow had escaped all other Christians for eighteen hundred years previously.

edit on 19-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Maybe you should do lock yourself up with a proper translation of scripture and not come out til you've read it all slowly and deliberately without preconceived notions according to emotion and worldly knowledge but according to prayer unto the Holy Spirit for guidance and understanding.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Again, that was done in 1948 long before my time. I support their right to be there and their return in peace, not the right to murder people in order to do so.

Which is what they counted on, that people would believe all their propaganda long enough to where once people realize it was all lies, people would have fallen into a state of complacency , telling themselves it is a "done deal" and just accept it, and, "nothing we can do about it now, since they are already there".

Obadiah, Hosea, Amos

In order for there to be a "return" they would have had to have been there previously, to start with, which is not the case.

Well they left for Egypt so they wouldn't starve, then they returned. Then Nebuchadnezzar enslaved them, but later they returned. Then Persia, and Rome, ...........I'd say there is really good historical evidence that yeah, they were there previously. So agree to disagree.

Evidence shows that they were never their in the first place, including their ancestors, back from before the mythological Moses would have been around.

Do you realize how ridiculous and argument you just made. Evidence shows that they were never there? If something doesn't exist then there is no evidence one way or the other. Evidence could prove another people were there but not that Israel or Hebrews never were. That's so dumb Even still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. History, archaeology, temple relics, and tombs are all evidence. Deny it or not.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Except that the unwise virgins are told to watch for the coming of the Son of Man but why would Jesus tell them that if the only Parousia to happen is gone?

The unwise virgins would have been the authorities of the religion connected directly or indirectly to the temple cult of Jerusalem. They had a superficial understanding of the prophecies of the coming of the Lord. The wise virgins would have been the people connected with the ceremonial religion cult practices of Jerusalem, as participants, probably more than the ones who were more or less "on the payroll" of the temple institution. They would have been there in a worshipful posture and were open to the experience of witnessing the power of God working through Jesus and would have accepted him into their souls, and then spiritually entered into "The Kingdom".
The unwise virgins would have, after the fact (the crucifixion) cast about to see if they could somehow come to a conviction one way or another to allow themselves to become open to the Christ spirit by seeing the truth of God through the life and works of Jesus. They did not reach that conclusion within their allotted time, so the opportunity came and went, with the result of being cast out, and that is cast out of the city, just as they had done to Jesus by hanging him on a stake outside the city walls. The ones who had not accepted The Lord, lost even the walls themselves after the city was besieged and captured by the Roman legions in 70 AD.
So "the Parousia" or the "coming" was this event in the parable, if you see it as such, of the virgins awaiting the Bridegroom. The bridegroom tarried, and then came in a spiritual way to his bride, which was the church. This was the leaving behind to the mourning in the outer darkness for those who were to greet him and did not.

edit on 19-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Nope you deny much scripture and much symbolism in this interpretation. I can't accept something other than what I know I've read. Sorry Dooby.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Obadiah, Hosea, Amos

Ezekiel, Joel chapter 3...

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Do you realize how ridiculous and argument you just made.

This is quite odd then:

Merneptah Stele.

reply to post by Jordan River


The rapture is rather a new idea in theology it came about in the 1800 the church fathers did not preach or teach a rapture they taught a 2nd coming of Christ and that it. The bible is full of ideas of enduring till the end and Jesus even prayed that the disciples will find strength to endure and not to be taken out early.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Nope you deny much scripture and much symbolism in this interpretation. I can't accept something other than what I know I've read. Sorry Dooby.

Too bad for you that your cult has not given you instruction on how to refute my explanation, which by the way I needed no assistance in arriving at but which is just the straight forward reading of it, without all the crazy theorizing that comes from your leader, Darby.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Revelation ch4 v1 was a single person, for the sake of experiencing the visions. and temporary, so that he could report them.
Within Christianity, the real debate around "the Rapture" is about the timing.
It's clear enough in 1 Thessalonians ch4 that Paul is talking about an event AT the Return of Christ.
What is known as "the Rapture" in the current debates is supposed to be an event taking place before that time- and there's no clear Biblical evidence for that.

If danger was coming for your bride, would you not remove her from out of the way of danger or would you leave her there to be raped and defiled by her attackers? Would you protect her or just not care? There will be martyrs in the great tribulation but i think those will be from the false bride as their price for salvation they will be made to die as martyrs.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Do you realize how ridiculous and argument you just made.

This is quite odd then:

Merneptah Stele.

How did this happen

reply to post by SimonPeter

How can some people take the same Bible that has been studied for so long by so many and come to a completely different conclusion than the vast majority of people . By consensus that person is most assuredly different . By consensus that persons views are most defiantly wrong . It could be their view point that distorts their conclusions but until that person realizes that they have strayed from the narrow path no one can show them the straight way .
The Bible was written to the people in old times and our times . One problem I believe is the difference in the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calender we use today . The crux of the bible is your faith in Jesus and in his word , not your ability to prove or try to improve his Word . The Bible is the inspired word of God or it's not !

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Do you realize how ridiculous and argument you just made.

This is quite odd then:

Merneptah Stele.

How did this happen

I'm probably mis-understanding your question, but Egyptian historians chiseled it into stone.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

If danger was coming for your bride,

Right?

"I'm going to beat the living crap out of you, pun intended, then we're going out to dinner. Encourage each other with these words."

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

How can some people take the same Bible that has been studied for so long by so many and come to a completely different conclusion than the vast majority of people . By consensus that person is most assuredly different . By consensus that persons views are most defiantly wrong . It could be their view point that distorts their conclusions but until that person realizes that they have strayed from the narrow path no one can show them the straight way .
The Bible was written to the people in old times and our times . One problem I believe is the difference in the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calender we use today . The crux of the bible is your faith in Jesus and in his word , not your ability to prove or try to improve his Word . The Bible is the inspired word of God or it's not !

You have two lines of manuscripts is one enormous error. You also have two streams of Hermeneutics approaches, one being literal interpretation and one being allegorical. So you in essence have TWO Bibles, and TWO theories of interpreting it. This whole issue began with Origen, implemented officially in the church by Augustine, and the inability for the common man to read the Word for themselves for almost 1,500 years turned a small heresy into a massive fail.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Too bad for you that your cult has not given you instruction on how to refute my explanation,

The Bible gives the methodological instruction, we're doing that in Christ's Name, for His glory alone and your repentance.

Proverbs 26:4-5

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by Jordan River

 

The rapture is rather a new idea in theology it came about in the 1800 the church fathers did not preach or teach a rapture they taught a 2nd coming of Christ and that it. The bible is full of ideas of enduring till the end and Jesus even prayed that the disciples will find strength to endure and not to be taken out early.

No, it was an idea lost during the days of Origen and made church doctrine by Augustine. It was popularized in the 1800's, but there are quotes from past preachers and teachers throughout the history of the church.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Bible gives the methodological instruction, we're doing that in Christ's Name, for His glory alone and your repentance.

Some sort of hermeneutical tool given to J. N. Darby, you mean?
Then everyone, from that point on, has to fall in line with his results.
And thus my frequent use of the term, cult, when discussing his followers whether you know who he is, or not.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, it was an idea lost during the days of Origen and made church doctrine by Augustine. It was popularized in the 1800's, but there are quotes from past preachers and teachers throughout the history of the church.

Of course you are not going to offer any citations or quotes, since this is just something you heard from a YouTube video.