Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

You musn't draw up your own standards of the way God "ought" to behave, and try to make him conform to it.
That's what the sceptics do, when they criticise the morality of the Biblical God.

We can judge what God would do in the final Tribulation of the church from what he did in the original Tribulation of the church, the one imposed by the Romans.
If there was anything in your analogy, nobody in the history of the church would ever have been martyred.
Instead, there were thousands upon thousands of martyrdoms over a space of two and a half centuries.
Your analogy would mean that God would have taken the faithful church away from that situation- but he didn't.

Similarly in the Old Testament Israel and Jerusalem were described at different times as their God's wife or betrothed, yet God allowed them to suffer the invasions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.
We read in the prophets his reasons for doing this; the people had gone astray, and this was his way of bringing them back.
But the innocent and faithful members of God's people suffered from the general chastisement along with the guilty. Jeremiah went into exile, just like the people he was preaching to.

If we want to understand why God allows a future church to suffer tribulation, we can consider the possibility that the church in general has gone astray and needs chastisement (as I do in my thread
Revelation; The sins of the church?)
But even if it is a measure of chastisement, as far as the church as a whole is concerned, we have no reason to think that the faithful saints will escape from it.

On the contrary, the New Testament shows us that persecution is built into the very fabric of the church.
The proto-martryr Stephen was martyred, the Apostle Paul was martyred, the Apostle Peter was martyred, the author of Revelation was at least sent into exile. You are not going to convince me that these were all unfaithful Christians, who died because God did not love them enough to save them from that death.
In Mark ch10 v30, the followers of Jesus are promised a hundred-fold reward with persecutions. Would you want to try to claim the eternal reward while evading the price that comes with it?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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

I keep seeing people refer to the Merneptah Stele as "proof of historicity of the Bible". I doubt any body citing it that way has even read it.

The stele is notable for being the only Ancient Egyptian document generally accepted as mentioning "Isrir" or "Israel". It is the earliest known attestation of the demonym Israelite. It is therefore refereed to it as the "Israel stele".

Did you catch that? Only Ancient Egyptian document mentioning Israel. And what does it say about Israel?

"Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more."
en.wikipedia.org...

Does that mean all the real Israelites got wiped out? Or does it mean that people who write things have ulterior motives not necessarily conducive to honest objective fact?

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I cannot accept this scholars "opinion"

The question at issue, you should remember, was whether these interpretations existed. I said there were other "respectable" interpretations, you challenged me to prove the fact by outlining them.
I have done what you asked, thus proving my original point.

1) I didn't say they come through the door.

I was trying to make sense of the weird expression you used, "The door is shut wherein the have to come later" [sic]. I've looked at this phrase upside-down and side-ways, trying to work out what it means, and it still looks closer to "They have to enter the door later" than it does to anything else.


But enough of these pleasantries.
Now that I realise your theory is based on Matthew ch25 v13, I can analyse three major flaws in your understanding of that verse.

First major flaw

You treat this verse as part of the bridegroom’s speech to the five Virgins.
You will find that none of the modern translations agree with you, and none of the commentaries.
They would place the closing quotation marks, indicating the end of the bridegroom’s speech, at the end of v12.

V13 is not part of the story- it is what Jesus says about the story to the people who are listening to him.
If you look through the other stories in the same series, you will see that he uses “Watch, therefore…”, or something similar, as a kind of refrain. See ch24 v42. See ch24 v44.
The pattern is something like;
“Here is my first story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready.
Here is my next story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready.
Here is another story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready”.
V13 is Jesus saying to the surrounding listeners “You’ve just heard the story of the five Virgins who entered the kingdom and the other five who were excluded. So for heaven’s sake learn from their example and don’t make the same mistake as the second group”.

Second major flaw

You haven’t grasped the full force of the preceding declaration “I do not know you”, which contradicts the message you’re trying to discover.

Search the scripture; look at the other places where the Lord says something similar.
In Matthew ch7 v23, he is going to say “I never knew you”, and the speech would then continue “depart from me, you evildoers”. These people are illustrating what he said in v21, that “Not everyone…shall enter the kingdom of heaven”.
In Luke ch13 v27, he is going to say to the latecomers knocking at the door “I do not know where you come from”, and the speech would then continue “Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
Then here in Matthew ch25 v12 another set of latecomers knocking at the door hear the same message, “I do not know you”, and we can understand the second part of the message, viz. “Depart from me”.

“I do not know you” is the message of final judgement and exclusion from the kingdom, and that’s what it means when the five foolish Virgins hear it. Therefore v13 cannot mean that they get a second chance.

Third major flaw

You haven’t grasped the full implications of failing to “Watch”.

Let’s begin with what the meaning of the word “watch”.
In this context, it means “keep awake”.
The Greek word here in this text is GREGOREITE- the root of it is the verb EGEIRO, which means “get up”, including the “getting out of bed” sense.
So the instruction GREGOREITE means “Keep up and about- don’t go to bed”.

Search the scripture; look at the other places where there’s a contrast between “keeping awake” and “being asleep/in bed”.
1 Thessalonians ch5 vv1-11 is one well-known passage where there’s a contrast between the wakeful and the sleeping, between the children of day and the children of night.
Let me draw your attention to the effects of the contrast. Those who are watchful, sober, sons of the day, will “obtain salvation” (v9).
But those who are taken by surprise, because they are sleeping, drunken, sons of darkness, will experience the opposite, which is “wrath” (v9) and “sudden destruction” (v3).
Similarly Revelation ch16 v15 says “Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that he may not go naked”. (People in those days did not wear pyjamas, so “nakedness” is the state of the man found in bed when the time comes).
Note that in this verse only the watchful is blessed. The man who is not awake does not get the blessing at all.

You think the penalty for “not watching” is missing the first bus, as it were, and having to wait for the second one.
But the New Testament teaching is that the penalty for “not watching” is “sudden destruction” and exclusion from the kingdom. There is nothing about a second chance.

I think part of the problem is that you have not read the New Testament thoroughly enough.
Your knowledge of it is too selective.

reply to post by pthena

Did you catch that? Only Ancient Egyptian document mentioning Israel. And what does it say about Israel?

It means it's one that they missed. Remember history class and what the incoming Pharaoh's did to enemies of the state or past Pharaohs they hated? The edict went out over the land to destroy any mention of them. They wanted their "memories" removed from that annuls of time.

Common practice in ancient Egypt.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Again, what is this Darby nonsense? It that your buzzword when you can't find several Bible passages to refute what someone has said? Fine, if that's how it works then whenever you post I'll just say you got this stuff from your cult leader Origen.

How about you quit the name-calling and guilt by association fallacies?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

What's the point? Even when quotes, book title, and page numbers are given you still refuse to acknowledge your error. In another thread you claimed Greek verb tenses were irrelevant, and I quoted from two of the greatest Greek scholars on the planet from their book saying understanding them was critical to understanding Greek, gave book title, and page number and you still question what they said as legitimate.

You waste everyone's time. I personally think you're a cult leader who just has zero charisma. You want everyone to follow you, when you should be pointing everyone to Christ. You even reject every statement of faith from Adventist.org and SDA.org and you claim to be an Adventist. Get off the internet, find a cadre of folks who believe what you say, if you can, and go down to some jungle and have church.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I'm not drawing on my own standards of how he ought to behave. Whenever i read the OT and NT i see a protector doing his damndest to protect his creations even when they were in the wrong and all he was asking of them was to just trust in him. Yeshua said if we have seen him we have seen the Father and if you want to know what the Father is like all you have to do is look at Yeshua because that is who he is.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I've heard that theory before.

It seems that some Pharaohs did a lousy job of erasing, for example: the Merneptah Stele (Year 5, 3rd month of Shemu (summer), day 3 (c.1209/1208 BC))is actually inscribed on the back of a stele erected by Amenhotep III (ruled Egypt from June 1386 to 1349 BC or June 1388 BC to December 1351 BC/1350).

Speaking of Amenhotep III. His son, who changed his name to Akhenaten after adopting a new god and religion, did attempt to erase the old god.

in the courtyard of Amenhotep III's colonnade of the Temple of Luxor where a cache of statues was found, including a 6 feet (1.8 m)-high pink quartzite statue of the king wearing the Double Crown found in near-perfect condition.[47] It was mounted on a sled, and may have been a cult statue.[47] The only damage it had sustained was that the name of the god Amun had been hacked out wherever it appeared in the pharaoh's cartouche, clearly done as part of the systematic effort to eliminate any mention of this god during the reign of his successor, Akhenaton.[47]
en.wikipedia.org...

It seems that ever since Prometheus formed man of clay and Athena breathed in life and understanding, people have been inventing new gods and trying to forget the old gods.

And dare I say it? Some people even invent whole pasts to account for who they are as a tribe and people.

But this is a Christian dialog, I shouldn't even be here!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Again, what is this Darby nonsense? It that your buzzword when you can't find several Bible passages to refute what someone has said? Fine, if that's how it works then whenever you post I'll just say you got this stuff from your cult leader Origen.

How about you quit the name-calling and guilt by association fallacies?

Your ignorance on the subject is not my fault.
It is not a "buzzword", it is the name of the person who invented the belief system which people take in a fashion of a cult member, which is in one big swallow.
If you want to refute my claim, demonstrate where your rapture and future destiny of earth beliefs come from besides Darby.
If you have a belief system which is basically made up, then you can't hardly expect to have verses that were designed to refute it, since it did not exist until the 1800's, when Darby cooked them up. What can be shown is that these various individual beliefs which make up this system were thought up by Darby. Now there have been some adjustments made since, but that is all they are, retaining the basic concepts that he came up with.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What's the point?

To demonstrate that you are not making false claims to support your cult's belief system. You should demonstrate that it is not a cult by showing how these were all normal ideas that are always part of the mainstream since the days of Jesus.

Even when quotes, book title, and page numbers are given you still refuse to acknowledge your error.

Not if they are irrelevant things just used as a distraction.

In another thread you claimed Greek verb tenses were irrelevant, and I quoted from two of the greatest Greek scholars on the planet from their book saying understanding them was critical to understanding Greek, gave book title, and page number and you still question what they said as legitimate.

Again, you are using an earlier distraction you used in another thread to create a new distraction in this one by irrelevantly referring to another irrelevant post you earlier made. You use the term, "tenses", not me, since I apparently have a better understanding of the Greek language than you do. What was under discussion was word definitions, which is distinct from word morphology, which only defines its usage in sentence structure. You only were using quotes because of your own lack of ability to understand yourself, or to be able to articulate an effective argument.

You waste everyone's time.

What I am doing is exposing your lack of any substantial biblical support, and what amounts to a lot of theories thrown in with other verse fragments taken out of context and arranged with other diverse fragments, to create new "verses" which go on to be repeated as if it came straight out of the Bible.

I personally think you're a cult leader who just has zero charisma. You want everyone to follow you, when you should be pointing everyone to Christ. You even reject every statement of faith from Adventist.org and SDA.org and you claim to be an Adventist. Get off the internet, find a cadre of folks who believe what you say, if you can, and go down to some jungle and have church.

Looking at a single blog does not instantly make you an expert in the denomination I am a member of. There is no creed one must adhere to nor a dogma other than Jesus is the Son of God and who we approach God through, which is a path started by baptism, which leads to a life acceptable to God so as to be fit to enter His kingdom.
There is no such thing as a one person cult, so you are presenting a contradiction of terms.
I would offer the observation on your presentation as it being nothing different that can be found on numerous blogs, so is rather redundant and of no value in an internet discussion forum; where if I have unique understandings, then they are of value, if for no other reason than to be at least original and not canned, which no one needs to look to a forum to find.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Yeshua said if we have seen him . . .

Interestingly, Christians have a similar saying about Jesus:

. . . Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

That's in John 14:8, which starts out: Jesus answered . . .
Wouldn't it be nice if one day you became a Christian by accepting the Christ of the New Testament rather than whatever anti-christ you currently believe in?

reply to post by Jordan River

I am just opening this dialogue for catholics and those damn heathenistic reformers to discuss Rapture vs non rapture.

Sorry for butting in to this intramural Christian dialog.

I'm a Pagan who would like to have the World remain habitable for many generations to come. I've got a link to a youtube video done by a Jew who is suspicious of the motives and agendas that support the rapture theory.

This is the 2007 Christians United for Israel conference. The very conference in which John Hagee calls for preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. I ask you, "Is this how Persians are rewarded for allowing the Jewish elite to return to Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity?"

The decree of return for the Jews, 539 BCE
I am Kurash [ "Cyrus" ], King of the World, Great King, Legitimate King, King of Babilani, King of Kiengir and Akkade, King of the four rims of the earth, Son of Kanbujiya, Great King, King of Hakhamanish, Grandson of Kurash, Great king, King of Hakhamanish, descendant of Chishpish, Great king, King of Hakhamanish, of a family which always exercised kingship; whose rule Bel and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts. When I entered Babilani as a friend and when I established the seat of the government in the palace of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord, induced the magnanimous inhabitants of Babilani to love me, and I was daily endeavoring to worship him.... As to the region from as far as Assura and Susa, Akkade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Kiengir and Akkade whom Nabonidus had brought into Babilani to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their former temples, the places which make them happy. [1]

It has been said, "by their fruits you shall no them (false prophets)." I think nuclear attack on Persians would qualify as a rather nasty bad fruit.

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour

There seems to be a whole lot of money and political power peddling supporting the spread of various notions.

"We have to be connected to Israel in order to enjoy the second coming of Christ." Tom Delay

5:11 is call for nuclear military attack, in support of Lieberman's agenda.

reply to post by pthena

I've heard that theory before.

So has everyone who has taken history class and ancient Egypt pops up. And obviously the scrubbers missed things, the stele wouldn't be in a museum intact if they were always 100% thorough.

reply to post by jmdewey60

It is not a "buzzword", it is the name of the person who invented the belief system which people take in a fashion of a cult member, which is in one big swallow.

He didn't "invent" anything, he "popularized" one already that had been taught for over 1,000 years. The "dark ages" were pretty tough on Eschatology considering the official position of the RCC was amillinnialism because of Augustine and Origen. The common man was not allowed to have a Bible, and it didn't really matter anyways they weren't allowed to be taught to read one.

That's why that 1,500 year period of time is called the "dark ages".

reply to post by jmdewey60

since I apparently have a better understanding of the Greek language than you do.

You said Greek verb tenses only refereed to masculine or feminine usages.

And sorry, you should realize by now no one cares when you call them "cult" members. You're shooting blanks, no one is dead.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

So I went through the gospels in order to better understand your pov and I can see how one could equate the unwise virgins with the jews but to exclude the vision from being at all about the time of the end or leading up unto the very time of the end when Jesus shows up again, I find to be unscriptural. It is evident that Christ is again coming; maybe in the first watch, or the second, or possibly even the third (Luke 12:35-38) but we do know that He is coming again.

The message to Thyatira, I also cannot discount. This message to watch til he comes could not have been for those at that very moment for there would have been no need for that particular message were only one Parousia the case. Christ would also not have told us he was going to prepare a place for us and would again come to receive us unto himself.

I do not know the day or the hour, but the Bridegroom is coming again with his Bride for the Children of the Bridechamber and regardless of the timing, we must be watching. For whether we be taken in harpazo as Thyatira being found in faith with lamps burning bright at his coming for being wise or whether we face the beast having to prove our faith and love through martyrdom because we are yet the unwise since Christ's crucifixion, it is of no consequence that we agree. What does matter is that be watching as we see the days approaching and to be ready in our hearts not loving this world and the things of it more than we love him and want to be with him.

Originally posted by pthena
"We have to be connected to Israel in order to enjoy the second coming of Christ." Tom Delay

5:11 is call for nuclear attack, in support of Lieberman's agenda.

You either didn't hear him correctly, or you're lying. He never called for a "nuclear attack" or quoted Lieberman calling for a "nuclear attack".

Listen again at the 5:11 mark.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff


You can't equate the Jews with "virgins", that's a metaphor for the bride of Christ. I.E. Christians.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Looking at a single blog does not instantly make you an expert in the denomination I am a member of.

It wasn't a "blog" it was Adventist.org.