The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a myth

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What "cult" manual? Fundamental Orthodox Christianity?

You just nullified any ability to make that claim, by what you posted on another thread. Let me quote:
"Matthew gives the Jewish legal genealogy through the adoption by Joseph. Luke gives the blood genealogy through Mary His mother. Heli was the father of Mary."

You're like a gnat that refuses to go away..

"1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, that is, of Jesus Christas the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary. 2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke's is Joseph's private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David's son, and thus, showing why he was heir to Solomon's crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David's and Solomon's throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all. 3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband. ... (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering Luke 3:23 thus: Jesus "being (as was suppposed), the son of Joseph, (but, in reality), the son of Heli." In this case, Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary's name was omitted because "ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." So we often find in the Old Testament, the grandson called the son. This ... shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom [that] his real descent from David should not be given. ). ~ "Smith's Bible Dictionary"

"... But the two genealogies are materially different. They coincide until David, when Matthew takes the ruling line [ie of Solomon]; whereas Luke takes the ...line by David's son Nathan....Matthew makes Joseph the son of Jacob, whereas Luke represents him as Heli, or Eli. He could not naturally have been the son of both these persons [thus] Jacob and Heli are different names for the same person. They are obviously two different genealogies from the common ancestor David.....[T]he genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph, and the one in Luke that of Mary - the former being the legal, and the latter the real genealogy of Jesus.....
Furthermore, Mary is always called by the Jews 'the daughter of Heli' and by the early Christian writers 'the daughter of Joakim and Anna'. Now, Joakim and Eliakim (as different names in Hebrew for God) are sometimes interchanged; so that Heli or Eli is an abridged form of Eliakim interchanged for Joakim." ~ "Daily Bible Illustrations - The Life and Death of Our Lord" p.77

This is basic New Testament survey. Back to the topic? Or do you have other Red Herrings to present to the discussion?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Gabriel promised Mary her Son would sit and rule of the throne of David in Luke 1:32-33. That throne didn't exist at the time Gabriel gave the promise nor has it existed since that day. The kings at that time were Moabites appointed by Rome.
Currently Christ is seated on His Father's throne in heaven. David's throne is non-existent at this time, and was non-existent when Gabriel gave the promise.

Jesus was the Messiah, meaning he was the inheritor of the kingdom promised that would be over Jacob.
A time was allotted to the people who were the remnant of Judah who were returning to that land from Babylonian captivity. This was given by God and told of to Daniel, including when the anointing would be cut off, as in including the Messiah being killed. That would have ended the dynasty established by David.
The risen Christ has another throne which he shares with those who have joined him, and is also foretold by Daniel in the Son of Man vision where this person shares his newly acquired power and authority with his many fellows. This is repeated in Revelation where the slain saints rule as equals with Christ. So the throne of David was put to rest in Jesus as being the final inheritor, to be exchanged for a better throne and one we will have part in if we endure to the end and are willing to die before joining as a slave to the Beast.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

This is basic New Testament survey.

What you did was pick out ones that support your view by quoting the Jews and their Talmudic writings so when you say what your identifying religious status is, you would be more correct in saying an amalgamation of fundamentalism accepting Jewish orthodoxy over Christian orthodoxy. This is how all these schemes work, from the ones I have looked at, which is to support a Mary genealogy theory, it can only be done by following the Jewish stories made up about her.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That would explain quite a lot. That's why you don't have a clue what the basic doctrines and beliefs of cults are. I'd suggest you read up on them so you can differentiate between fundamental orthodox Christian affirmations and those of cults.

Here is your cult right here, which is the one that operates by dispersing itself among various churches and does not have its own denomination, existing to subvert what were once fundamental and orthodox by introducing their own new doctrines that are designed for one purpose which is to gain support for the crimes committed by the Jews in Palestine and against the whole world.

This topic has totally been derailed, i'm just gonna let it die.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Yeah, I don't believe the Abrahamic land covenant was ever vacated by God. God made the covenant with Himself, He placed Abraham in a deep sleep and walked through the animal halves Himself. This was symbolic in showing it rested upon His faithfulness alone. And the re-emergence of Israel was a major fulfillment of prophecy.

I want to quote a document which is an exegesis of Genesis 15.

The ceremony is presented in the context of a couple of “firsts” for Abram and for Scripture. Genesis 15:1 states that the “word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision,” the first time the familiar “word of the Lord came…” is used in the Bible and the only time God communicates to Abram / Abraham in a vision.

Allen Stranglen
You have the Lord transmitting to Abrahan the word, in a vision, then something happening among the cut animals while he is in a deep trance. A close comparison would be what happened to Adam in Genesis 2, where he is put into a deep trance while the probably same "the Lord" does some operation involving his rib. The exact same Hebrew word is used in both texts.
To continue on in this exegesis:

The animals were cut in two and placed opposite each other so that the blood formed a pool, a so-called blood path, in between the pieces as they drained. The two parties---the greater party who establishes the terms of the covenant first, and the lesser party who either accepts or rejects the terms second---then walked through the blood as a way of saying, “May what was done to these animals be done to me if I do not keep this covenant.”1 The one who failed to keep the covenant paid for it with his life.

We don't actually see the person of this god but things that indicate the presence of a god. Let's think about what god died and what god died to pay a ransom for the world to break the Old Covenant. That would be Jesus. So there is a curse upon whoever it was who walked between those animal parts. From my looking into these NT prophecies concerning the end of the world, I have to think that it is the bringing about all the negative promises of the Prophets onto Israel of old, and the vindication of the new spiritual Israel of those who believed in Jesus. If Jesus had his god personality killed permanently, to free the world of this contract made by one god claiming for himself the status of the Most High God, then he did. Jesus accepted it and relinquished his godhood forever to accept his position as the first of the saints to rule the world in a true godly fashion, not as it was under the rule of the former god of this world.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Gabriel promised Mary her Son would sit and rule of the throne of David in Luke 1:32-33. That throne didn't exist at the time Gabriel gave the promise nor has it existed since that day. The kings at that time were Moabites appointed by Rome.
Currently Christ is seated on His Father's throne in heaven. David's throne is non-existent at this time, and was non-existent when Gabriel gave the promise.

Jesus was the Messiah, meaning he was the inheritor of the kingdom promised that would be over Jacob.
A time was allotted to the people who were the remnant of Judah who were returning to that land from Babylonian captivity. This was given by God and told of to Daniel, including when the anointing would be cut off, as in including the Messiah being killed. That would have ended the dynasty established by David.
The risen Christ has another throne which he shares with those who have joined him, and is also foretold by Daniel in the Son of Man vision where this person shares his newly acquired power and authority with his many fellows. This is repeated in Revelation where the slain saints rule as equals with Christ. So the throne of David was put to rest in Jesus as being the final inheritor, to be exchanged for a better throne and one we will have part in if we endure to the end and are willing to die before joining as a slave to the Beast.

So Gabriel lied? That's brilliant. Currently Christ sits and rules atop His Father's throne in heaven, He has yet to sit and rule from David's throne in Jerusalem. This will happen on His 2nd coming. The angel said "this same Jesus" will return in "the same like manner" as the apostles saw Him ascend into heaven. That means physically and bodily He will return.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

This is basic New Testament survey.

What you did was pick out ones that support your view by quoting the Jews and their Talmudic writings so when you say what your identifying religious status is, you would be more correct in saying an amalgamation of fundamentalism accepting Jewish orthodoxy over Christian orthodoxy. This is how all these schemes work, from the ones I have looked at, which is to support a Mary genealogy theory, it can only be done by following the Jewish stories made up about her.

Christianity is an extension of Judaism, it was began in Jerusalem, by Jews, and we have a Jewish King.

Hello McFly.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm not a Gnostic, I reject completely doeticism. Christ was fully man when He walked the Earth. He was also fully God the Son. He added humanity to His Divinity.

Your response to my quote of 1 Timothy tells me you are a Oneness believer who rationalizes the use of the word trinity as a cover for your heresy, which is in line with the deceptive practices of your cult.
You still end up with the same result which is a Jesus who could not fail, being the Holy God Almighty. You just arrive at it by a different route, one of course not supported by the Bible.

Nope, I don't subscribe to "Oneness" doctrine. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are seperate persons of the Godhead.

OK, then that assumption of mine may have been wrong and that the correct evaluation of your reaction is that you just ignore anything in the Bible that does not support your cult's doctrine.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
This topic has totally been derailed, i'm just gonna let it die.

I'm sorry, I kinda shredded the criticisms of a pre-trib rapture. I'd be more than willing to continue the discussion if you'd like, Eschatology is one of my favorite subjects.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm not a Gnostic, I reject completely doeticism. Christ was fully man when He walked the Earth. He was also fully God the Son. He added humanity to His Divinity.

Your response to my quote of 1 Timothy tells me you are a Oneness believer who rationalizes the use of the word trinity as a cover for your heresy, which is in line with the deceptive practices of your cult.
You still end up with the same result which is a Jesus who could not fail, being the Holy God Almighty. You just arrive at it by a different route, one of course not supported by the Bible.

Nope, I don't subscribe to "Oneness" doctrine. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are seperate persons of the Godhead.

OK, then that assumption of mine may have been wrong and that the correct evaluation of your reaction is that you just ignore anything in the Bible that does not support your cult's doctrine.

Please, still waiting for you to explain what my particular "cult" is. You're the admitted expert here and all that jazz.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So Gabriel lied? That's brilliant. Currently Christ sits and rules atop His Father's throne in heaven, He has yet to sit and rule from David's throne in Jerusalem. This will happen on His 2nd coming. The angel said "this same Jesus" will return in "the same like manner" as the apostles saw Him ascend into heaven. That means physically and bodily He will return.

Let's look at what Gabriel said.

So the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God! Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will never end.”

Jesus takes the title and is anointed by God in the presence of witnesses and declared son of God, as Messiah. So it is this kingship rather than a literal throne to sit on. That is the interpretation in the commentaries that were written before the Darby/Schofield heresies were introduced. From that day until he died, he was the acting king but he was demonstrating his rule in a way other than what was hoped for from the Judean religious leaders. You are taking the side of those who asked Pilate to remove the sign on the cross that said, "King of the Jews".
By Gabriel saying Jacob instead of Israel in the "forever" clause, he is indicating that it is reverting back to a pre-davidic status.
Also it does not say angels in acts, it says there were men dressed in white, who said Jesus would return in like manner, which does not seem very warlike to me.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Christianity is an extension of Judaism, it was began in Jerusalem, by Jews, and we have a Jewish King.

More a replacement. 70 weeks are allotted to your people. Time's up and it was finished at the great tribulation which was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was when the Messiah was cut of, in the midst of the final week.
The Dynasty of the King of the Jews was done when the holder of that title was killed by his own people.
There is no further Davidic throne. Jesus will take his place as Christ along with the slain saints who were martyred in the cause of Christ, on new thrones that will be set up on the day of judgement.
This is what the Bible is telling me. I don't see there being any bond to the Old Testament ways and Jesus came to free us from those bonds. Taking up the Talmud now by Christians is negating the work of Jesus and is not true Christianity.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Jesus takes the title and is anointed by God in the presence of witnesses and declared son of God, as Messiah. So it is this kingship rather than a literal throne to sit on. That is the interpretation in the commentaries that were written before the Darby/Scofield heresies were introduced. From that day until he died, he was the acting king but he was demonstrating his rule in a way other than what was hoped for from the Judean religious leaders. You are taking the side of those who asked Pilate to remove the sign on the cross that said, "King of the Jews".
By Gabriel saying Jacob instead of Israel in the "forever" clause, he is indicating that it is reverting back to a pre-davidic status.
Also it does not say angels in acts, it says there were men dressed in white, who said Jesus would return in like manner, which does not seem very warlike to me.

Why are you wiggling out of the text? Gabriel said He would be given David's throne. A throne which did NOT exist at the time Gabriel spoke those words. The kings over Judea were Moabites appointed by Rome. David's throne is not in heaven, God's throne is. Christ has been sitting upon and ruling from His Father's throne since ascention. He has yet to be given David's throne, from Jerusalem to sit and rule upon.

F.Y.I. "Jacob" is "Israel", they are synonymous names. There are 1,800+ references in the OT to the Messiah ruling and reigning from Jerusalem. 17 OT books give prominence to the issue alone. In Hermaneutics you need 3 supporting verses to substantiate any major doctrine. 1,800+ is "overkill". Christ details His exact reason for returning to Earth, it's for people attacking His "inheritance", the people of Israel, the Jews. And for dividing his "land", Israel. The church is His bride, and the land of Israel and the Jews are His inheritance from His Father.

Joel 3:2

"I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land." (KJB)

"I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land." (NASV)

"I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land," (ESV)

And the "two men" were angels, they materialized as Christ was ascending wearing white robes. But let's forget that for a second. All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so the one who is telling us Christ will return in like manner the apostles saw Him ascend is the Holy Spirit through the pen of Luke. He is returning. And all references to Him returning in the Old and New testaments it's for war. Two OT prophets saw Him with blood stained raiment. In Revelation 3 different passages describe Him waging war Himself with the armies of the antichrist.

Just repent JM, you need to realize you've read too many books by Jew haters. People that rejected Israel, who believe the church inherited all the promises made to Abraham for his Earthly seed. We didn't, the church has different promises and different destinies. We are Abraham's spiritual seed, we are not his physical seed and never will be.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Christianity is an extension of Judaism, it was began in Jerusalem, by Jews, and we have a Jewish King.

More a replacement. 70 weeks are allotted to your people. Time's up and it was finished at the great tribulation which was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was when the Messiah was cut of, in the midst of the final week.
The Dynasty of the King of the Jews was done when the holder of that title was killed by his own people.
There is no further Davidic throne. Jesus will take his place as Christ along with the slain saints who were martyred in the cause of Christ, on new thrones that will be set up on the day of judgement.
This is what the Bible is telling me. I don't see there being any bond to the Old Testament ways and Jesus came to free us from those bonds. Taking up the Talmud now by Christians is negating the work of Jesus and is not true Christianity.

Let me brutally assault your preterist theory with the facts. John describes a future event. He wrote Revelation 25-26 years after the destruction of the temple. John was imprisoned on Patmos during the reign of Domitian, and was released upon his death in 96 A.D.

Domitian wasn't even ruling Rome in 70 A.D. He began his rule in 81 A.D.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm not a Gnostic, I reject completely doeticism. Christ was fully man when He walked the Earth. He was also fully God the Son. He added humanity to His Divinity.

Your response to my quote of 1 Timothy tells me you are a Oneness believer who rationalizes the use of the word trinity as a cover for your heresy, which is in line with the deceptive practices of your cult.
You still end up with the same result which is a Jesus who could not fail, being the Holy God Almighty. You just arrive at it by a different route, one of course not supported by the Bible.

Nope, I don't subscribe to "Oneness" doctrine. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are seperate persons of the Godhead.

OK, then that assumption of mine may have been wrong and that the correct evaluation of your reaction is that you just ignore anything in the Bible that does not support your cult's doctrine.

Please, still waiting for you to explain what my particular "cult" is. You're the admitted expert here and all that jazz.

Funny you would say that, considering what you said about me earlier.

That would explain quite a lot. That's why you don't have a clue what the basic doctrines and beliefs of cults are. I'd suggest you read up on them so you can differentiate between fundamental orthodox Christian affirmations and those of cults.

The best way for me to explain your cult is to quote your earlier post which sums up to me the basic philosophy.

Stop making excuses, repent and quit allegorizing the literal reading of God's Word. End your bigoty and hatred. You're coming against God and His people and His land.

The "Land of God" cult I will call it now, in honor of your defining it right there. You are a member of the Land of God cult.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Funny you would say that, considering what you said about me earlier.

To which I've already explained was sarcastic hyperbole. Apparently you're incapable of grasping literary devices. I was mocking your apparent new-found ability to discern cults when you've previously stated you've not studied them or their doctrines. Highlighting your hypocrisy by sarcasm and hyperbole apparently only exacerbates the issue.

Point noted.

The "Land of God" cult. That's a new one. Is there any information on that cult somewhere?In Joel Christ calls Israel His land, and will judge the nations who divide it. Can you please provide Biblical reference where God vacated the Abrahamic land covenant? Please show us.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

F.Y.I. "Jacob" is "Israel", they are synonymous names. There are 1,800+ references in the OT to the Messiah ruling and reigning from Jerusalem. 17 OT books give prominence to the issue alone. In Hermaneutics you need 3 supporting verses to substantiate any major doctrine. 1,800+ is "overkill". Christ details His exact reason for returning to Earth, it's for people attacking His "inheritance", the people of Israel, the Jews. And for dividing his "land", Israel. The church is His bride, and the land of Israel and the Jews are His inheritance from His Father.

The original person Jacob was the same person as who was later on in his life renamed Israel, but the two names have different meanings. Israel is defunct in its old understanding but is alive in the new understanding which comes about by believing in Jesus and repenting of sin and being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus returns to punish those people who rejected him and they will be no more. Jesus came the first time to die to pay the ransom to free us from all the former covenants and to join us into a new covenent. Jesus died as God, to show that the curse of breaking the covenant was placed upon him, to end the curses on us. Those who do not accept that payment of ransom will receive the curse upon them, which would be the opposite of what your Land of God cult preaches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He is returning. And all references to Him returning in the Old and New testaments it's for war. Two OT prophets saw Him with blood stained raiment. In Revelation 3 different passages describe Him waging war Himself with the armies of the antichrist.

I don't know what those are so you might want to give a citation for these verses about the bloody appearance of a prophetic character.
There is some vision by John of a portent seen of a fantastic nature who goes to war but it seems to be concerning the going forth of the word of God. It is nothing about the actual person Jesus going into physical bloody combat.
The others are spiritual warfare in regards to being overcome by the temptations of the world, as opposed to gaining the victory over those enticement's to veer off from the true path to glory.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Just repent JM, you need to realize you've read too many books by Jew haters. People that rejected Israel, who believe the church inherited all the promises made to Abraham for his Earthly seed. We didn't, the church has different promises and different destinies. We are Abraham's spiritual seed, we are not his physical seed and never will be.

I have read none and to the contrary have read tons of books sympathetic to the Jews.
I was just raised in a church that had not yet been subverted by all this new fake theology which coincidentally appeared when literal Zionism was formulated into its current incarnation.
There is still one world that ends up with people living in it that had previously lived in the current world so I don't see how there can be two different destinies.
Your general world view is up side down from what has been accepted as social norms and international law. You have an ideology based entirely on ethnic exclusivity to the point of having it be a righteous ritual to kill those not of that particular race. This is true racial hatred, what you support. I have no such hatred whatsoever. I base my judgement on actions and character, not genetic or religious affiliation.