Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

page: 88
13
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 


Please. Paul taught the rapture doctrine. The thing people argue about is the timing of it.


There are those who do not believe in the rapture at all.

I personally do not believe in it, never really have, but, as with many other doctrinal differences, I don't think it makes any difference whether it's true or not, or whether you believe in it or not. If there's a rapture, then there's a rapture, and one will be raptured on a basis of faith in Christ, not a faith in the rapture.




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hmm, didn't know that, thanks for the update.

I assume that it's a fairly recent determination? I remember watching a program a few years ago on the History Channel or something that was about some guy who was going to get around the whole "There's a Muslim holy site there" by projecting a hologram of the Temple instead of actually constructing one. (Older article about his scheme here: Apocalypse Now)


Projecting a hologram of the Temple wouldn't be kosher. Requirements have to be met to even build it. One of them, is that it can't be built by a man who has blood on his hands. David was denied building it because he was a man of blood, a warrior, so it was passed to Solomon instead.

My opinion is, if they do build it. It will be like the one they constructed at Mt. Sinai and Horeb, a Tabernacle made of tent material and not cut stone. This would negate having to have much of anything to do with the Dome. Simple, humble and to the point like the Lord himself.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 


Please. Paul taught the rapture doctrine. The thing people argue about is the timing of it.


There are those who do not believe in the rapture at all.


Well sure. As with everything there is always an extreme rare exception, but you don't consider that to be the rule. That would be a huge fallacy.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 


Please. Paul taught the rapture doctrine. The thing people argue about is the timing of it.


There are those who do not believe in the rapture at all.


Well sure. As with everything there is always an extreme rare exception, but you don't consider that to be the rule. That would be a huge fallacy.


I do not see this false doctrine to be any more extreme than your teaching that 70 weeks wasn't fulfilled in the 70th week.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

2nd.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.


Teaching that there won't be a resurrection/rapture is false doctrine



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.


Teaching that there won't be a resurrection/rapture is false doctrine

Like I said, I don't teach anything about the rapture. I just personally do not believe that it will happen.

And it has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead, which I obviously do believe will happen.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.


Teaching that there won't be a resurrection/rapture is false doctrine

Like I said, I don't teach anything about the rapture. I just personally do not believe that it will happen.

And it has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead, which I obviously do believe will happen.


The resurrection of the dead is part of the rapture.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.


Teaching that there won't be a resurrection/rapture is false doctrine

Like I said, I don't teach anything about the rapture. I just personally do not believe that it will happen.

And it has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead, which I obviously do believe will happen.


The resurrection of the dead is part of the rapture.

So, is it also your conclusion that no one, prior to the 1800s, believed in the resurrection of the dead, since no one prior to that had the foggiest notion of this "Rapture Theology"?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I have to correct you there, that's a common myth. The rapture doctrine was popularized in the 1800's but it appears throughout church history from various people. Besides that, rapture is a Latin term used in the Vulgate for the Greek word harpazo. All it means is a catching/snatching away. And the implication in Greek is to snatch someone out of harms way. Like a father who snatches a child from running out in traffic.
edit on 20-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Pray for a rapture, prepare for there not being one.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Non sequitur.

Indeed.

And, even so, I fail to see how the lack of belief in something is interpreted to be "false doctrine" -- I don't go running around proclaiming that there is not going to be a rapture, I simply don't believe that there will be one.


Teaching that there won't be a resurrection/rapture is false doctrine

Like I said, I don't teach anything about the rapture. I just personally do not believe that it will happen.

And it has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead, which I obviously do believe will happen.


The resurrection of the dead is part of the rapture.

So, is it also your conclusion that no one, prior to the 1800s, believed in the resurrection of the dead, since no one prior to that had the foggiest notion of this "Rapture Theology"?


You are speaking of the pre-tribulation rapture which was a false doctrine that began in the 1800's. Christ and the apostles taught a post-tribulation resurrection/rapture.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Pray for a rapture, prepare for there not being one.


We were told to occupy until He returns. If that happens or doesn't in our lifetime so be it.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


No it was not, see above. It was popularized in the 1800's, it was present in various places throughout Christian history. Google rapture myths. Perry Stone can help you out a great deal in this regard.

edit on 20-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
 


I have to correct you there, that's a common myth. The rapture doctrine was popularized in the 1800's but it appears throughout church history from various people. Besides that, rapture is a Latin term used in the Vulgate for the Greek word harpazo. All it means is a catching/snatching away. And the implication in Greek is to snatch someone out of harms way. Like a father who snatches a child from running out in traffic.

Perhaps, but I still fail to see how not believing it will happen somehow means that I don't believe in the resurrection of the dead. My perception is that it happens at the second coming of Christ or at the last judgement, but I don't really see how the timing matters (unless one is bound by minutia and thinks God cares.) All the "post-millenialism" and "pre-millenialism" and all that strikes me as people arguing over something that they have no way of knowing, and which is of no relevance whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The divide is due to hermaneutics. People who tend to allegorize Eschatology tend to gravitate to the amillinial, poat-tribulational camp. Those who are very rigid, precise and view Eschatology literally tend to fall into the premillennial, pretribulational camp.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


No it was not, see above. It was popularized in the 1800's, it was present in various places throughout Christian history. Google rapture myths. Perry Stone can help you out a great deal in this regard.

edit on 20-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


The "evidence" of pre-trib rapture before 1800 that I have read has actually turned out to be mid-trib. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, post it.

More important than whether pre-trib exists before 1800 is whether pre-trib was taught by Christ. Christ taught after the tribulation of those days.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ's comment about after the tribulation of those days He was speaking about His return to set foot on Earth. Not the rapture where He comes in the air to gather His own. You have two sets of verses that aren't the same. Some of them we are told to expect Him at any moment, Paul and Peter expected His return in their lifetime. Other verses talk about His return at a very specific detailed moment, even gives the precises days, months, and years. In some verses only His own will see and hear Him, in other verses every eye will see Him return in glory.

A majority of people who fail at understanding these passages tend to blend both groups of verses together even though they are not similar. With the rapture He never comes to set foot on Earth, He calls His own and returns to the throne room in heaven for the marriage supper and the judgment seat of Christ. With His 2nd coming the church comes with Him, He sets foot on Earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem and at the end of 1,000 years the wicked dead are raised and He does the GWT judgment.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
As far as the 1800's myth:


The Margaret MacDonald Origin

One of the most widely circulated attacks against the pre-trib rapture is the notion that a girl named Margaret MacDonald started this theological view back in 1830. The claim is typically made that MacDonald received a demonic vision, passed it on to John Darby, who in turn popularized it. Disproving this assertion proves rather easy. Pre-trib scholars have discovered a host of rapture writings that predate Margaret MacDonald.

Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

One post-trib author offered a reward to anyone who could find a quote that predated MacDonald. He had to quickly cough up the money when someone identified a scholar who wrote about the pre-trib rapture several years before MacDonald. As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been scratched.

With the revealing of all these pre-MacDonald writings, you would think that this argument has been debunked. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We seem to be involved in a tug-of-war with the truth. Apparently, due to their lack of research, pre-trib opponents continue to pump out publications that cite MacDonald as the originator of the pre-trib rapture.



Rapture Ready





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join