The Rapture explained in two minutes

[GaryA]

Show me,,,,,, How do you connect the God's Judgment and God's Wrath as the same.....

I am not sure what you are asking / requesting --- I am saying that they are not the same...

Now - I do believe that the 'Wrath of God' is included in - as part of - the 'Judgment of God', where the book with the seven seals is concerned -- because, I consider the book with the seven seals to be a book of Judgment.

 

[GaryA]

[And now for Popeye's magic "disappearing act".]

HAHAHAHA

You don't know popeye.

You are asking him to take a front row seat and "stay for a while"...

 

[GaryA]

The Gathering happens immediately on the heels of the Great Tribulation. That is undeniable, it would seem.

Please see post #411.

 

[GaryA]

When exactly - in the narrative of Revelation 19:11-21 - do you suppose the 'event' of Matthew 24:31 takes place?

*** BUMP ***

 

[MattTooFor]

Please see post #411.

Don't know what you might be referring to. There is nothing at that post that even remotely negates the simple statement of Scripture --

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days [pay close attention to that word "immediately" - lol]...He will send forth His angels..and they will gather His elect"...". Matthew 24:29,31 You can't rebut the Bible. That's against the rules.

 

[GaryA]

Don't know what you might be referring to. There is nothing at that post that even remotely negates the simple statement of Scripture --

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days [pay close attention to that word "immediately" - lol]...He will send forth His angels..and they will gather His elect"...". Matthew 24:29,31 You can't rebut the Bible. That's against the rules.

That is not what it says...

What it does say:


Matthew 24:

[SUP]29[/SUP] Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: [SUP]30[/SUP] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [SUP]31[/SUP] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


What is highlighted in the darker red color is what happens "immediately after" the tribulation of those days...

( pay close attention to the words between "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" and the colon )

And then ( i.e. - after that ) shall appear...

EDIT: Why did you leave out verse 30?

 

[GaryA]

That's against the rules.

Why did you leave out verse 30?

Isn't that "against the rules"...???

 

[MattTooFor]

The first phrase in verse 26 of Daniel 9 tells us this. However, you must understand that the 62 weeks mentioned do not start at the end of the 7th week; rather, they start in the middle of the 8th week - 52 years after the decree went forth to rebuild the city. Please see the 'Time Line' page linked to in my signature.

They start in the middle of...what?

In Dan. 9:26, Jesus is crucified at the end of 69 weeks. There is no gap between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

Dan. 9:25 makes that clear: The text states clearly that from the "issuing of the decree" to the Messiah is 69 weeks, period. NOT 69 weeks plus some 'gap' you need, in order to make your math work for your 70 A.D. scenario (if that's what this is about)!

I looked at your "timeline". Couldn't make heads or tails. There are no citations. No links to credentialed Bible historians who could vouch for your dates and years and such. Show me some links to credentialed Bible historians who have the numbers you need to support your numbers, if you don't mind. You'll need to produce more links, I would say.

It is said that Stephen was stoned "right about that time" - not that I am basing anything on it; however, it does make sense -- that is when the 'times of the Gentiles' began...

Of course, it could also be the "key event" ( with purpose ) that marks the end of the 'times of the Jews' and the beginning of the 'times of the Gentiles' -- considering the 'vision' that Stephen saw at the time...

"Food for thought..."

"It is said"...that this was when Stephen was stoned??? Who "said", pray tell? And then you say "not that I'm basing anything on it"?? You're basing your entire assertion (about this "3.5 years after the crucifixion") on it. (?) And this ultra-flimsy ultra-speculation is what you were yelling and screaming at us about...that we were on the edge of the abyss of doom if we didn't immediately convert to your views???

And then finally...you admit this merely rises to the level of "food for thought"? Gary, it doesn't even rise to that level: Why would anyone bother to sit around pondering whether Stephen's stoning was exactly 3.5 years after the crucifixion...when one could never ascertain such a thing for the rest of one's life? What would be the purpose of that? And you would ask others to adjust their doctrinal positions, based on things that rise only to the level of "food for thought". Gary, my goodness.

I would have to say this "3.5 years after the crucifixion" theory by itself removes virtually all plausibility from your overall theory about the 70 Weeks. God provides these prophecies for our benefit...so we can see things snap into place...and receive that reassurance that God is in control and that things are proceeding in an orderly fashion.

You ask people to believe that somewhere in the murky mists of 3.5 years after the crucifixion, some mysterious, invisible thing happened that put a snap-crackle-pop punctuation point on the 70th Week. But...what was it?

After all those 490 years...we get to know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing. God ends those 490 years with...nothing? Total invisibility? We just have to take Gary's word for it? Come on, Gary.

I would ask again -- is there another soul on this earth who believes this? I'm serious. Are you, as far as you know, the only person who has come up with this?

 

[MattTooFor]

That is not what it says...

Uh...yes, it does say that. All in the space of 3 verses. I have no idea how you think you have any argument here. (?) There is no license to create any gap. That would be pure fabrication on your part. There is no conspiracy theory here as to how I quote the passage. I'm just showing how the passage gets from A to B.

What is it you think is being glossed over? Those events all happen on the heels of each other-- one after the other, after the other. The passage keeps repeating "and then". What else would that be indicating other than "and then"?

You refer to "colon". Bro, you don't have some sort of secret divining powers which give you "deeper understanding" into the specific significance of "colon" than the rest of us mere mortals...other than what the English rules of grammar might indicate. And they don't indicate 2000 year time gaps (or whatever you're claiming).

Not to mention...what do all the other Bible translations do, that don't have your mysterious "colon" - the French Bible, the Vietnamese Bible, the Russian Bible, or the NASB I happen to be looking at, at the moment, etc.?

I'm starting to think, with this reference to a "colon"...you may be waaay off the proverbial reservation, for me. Yes, this may indeed be a rather short conversation. Give you a couple more tries, I guess.

Yes, there IS a gap in Dan. 9:27 between the prophecy of the crucifixion and the prophecy of the trampling of Jerusalem. But that gap is proven historically. We Bible students know there is a gap. That doesn't allow you to go around the Bible, inserting gaps wherever it pleases you. It don't work like that, friend.

 

[GaryA]

They start in the middle of...what?

In Dan. 9:26, Jesus is crucified at the end of 69 weeks. There is no gap between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

Dan. 9:25 makes that clear: The text states clearly that from the "issuing of the decree" to the Messiah is 69 weeks, period. NOT 69 weeks plus some 'gap' you need, in order to make your math work for your 70 A.D. scenario (if that's what this is about)!

I looked at your "timeline". Couldn't make heads or tails. There are no citations. No links to credentialed Bible historians who could vouch for your dates and years and such. Show me some links to credentialed Bible historians who have the numbers you need to support your numbers, if you don't mind. You'll need to produce more links, I would say.

"It is said"...that this was when Stephen was stoned??? Who "said", pray tell? And then you say "not that I'm basing anything on it"?? You're basing your entire assertion (about this "3.5 years after the crucifixion") on it. (?) And this ultra-flimsy ultra-speculation is what you were yelling and screaming at us about...that we were on the edge of the abyss of doom if we didn't immediately convert to your views???

And then finally...you admit this merely rises to the level of "food for thought"? Gary, it doesn't even rise to that level: Why would anyone bother to sit around pondering whether Stephen's stoning was exactly 3.5 years after the crucifixion...when one could never ascertain such a thing for the rest of one's life? What would be the purpose of that? And you would ask others to adjust their doctrinal positions, based on things that rise only to the level of "food for thought". Gary, my goodness.

I would have to say this "3.5 years after the crucifixion" theory by itself removes virtually all plausibility from your overall theory about the 70 Weeks. God provides these prophecies for our benefit...so we can see things snap into place...and receive that reassurance that God is in control and that things are proceeding in an orderly fashion.

You ask people to believe that somewhere in the murky mists of 3.5 years after the crucifixion, some mysterious, invisible thing happened that put a snap-crackle-pop punctuation point on the 70th Week. But...what was it?

After all those 490 years...we get to know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing. God ends those 490 years with...nothing? Total invisibility? We just have to take Gary's word for it? Come on, Gary.

I would ask again -- is there another soul on this earth who believes this? I'm serious. Are you, as far as you know, the only person who has come up with this?

Uh...yes, it does say that. All in the space of 3 verses. I have no idea how you think you have any argument here. (?) There is no license to create any gap. That would be pure fabrication on your part. There is no conspiracy theory here as to how I quote the passage. I'm just showing how the passage gets from A to B.

What is it you think is being glossed over? Those events all happen on the heels of each other-- one after the other, after the other. The passage keeps repeating "and then". What else would that be indicating other than "and then"?

You refer to "colon". Bro, you don't have some sort of secret divining powers which give you "deeper understanding" into the specific significance of "colon" than the rest of us mere mortals...other than what the English rules of grammar might indicate. And they don't indicate 2000 year time gaps (or whatever you're claiming).

Not to mention...what do all the other Bible translations do, that don't have your mysterious "colon" - the French Bible, the Vietnamese Bible, the Russian Bible, or the NASB I happen to be looking at, at the moment, etc.?

I'm starting to think, with this reference to a "colon"...you may be waaay off the proverbial reservation, for me. Yes, this may indeed be a rather short conversation. Give you a couple more tries, I guess.

Yes, there IS a gap in Dan. 9:27 between the prophecy of the crucifixion and the prophecy of the trampling of Jerusalem. But that gap is proven historically. We Bible students know there is a gap. That doesn't allow you to go around the Bible, inserting gaps wherever it pleases you. It don't work like that, friend.

You sure seem to like to "spew" a lot without even understanding what I am saying...

There are no gaps in the 70 weeks of Daniel. I did not say that there were any...

 

[GaryA]

Show me some links to credentialed Bible historians...

This is where most people go wrong...

What if your 'credentialed' source has it wrong?

Stop trusting in 'credentialed' people over what the scriptures say. Your best 'credentialed' source is the Bible.

If you cannot do your own personal Bible studying -- if you need to be "spoon-fed" by 'credentialed' people -- then - well - I would say that you will never have it "quite right" - because, many / most of the 'credentialed' sources you are depending on do not have it "quite right"... ( or worse - they are "totally off" )

 

[MattTooFor]

You sure seem to like to "spew" a lot without even understanding what I am saying...

I like to "spew"? I was just going along, commenting on your various comments that I disagree with and trying to be specific about why I disagree. Didn't realize I was "spewing". I'll try to avoid that in the future...unless...you're equating any countering comments with "spew". Yikes.

There are no gaps in the 70 weeks of Daniel. I did not say that there were any...

So...here's a case in point. I guess more of my "spewing" is about to commence? I believe there IS a "gap" in the 70 Weeks (between the 69th and 70th). And so, I am spewing...er, I mean expressing...disagreement. (?)

You also said the 62 Weeks do not start at the end of the 7th Week. If they do not start at the end of the 7th Week...how is that not a gap?

 

[MattTooFor]

This is where most people go wrong...

What if your 'credentialed' source has it wrong?

Well...it's a wild, woolly and dangerous world out there, isn't it though? You have to roll up your sleeves, prepare to expend some mental 'perspiration', and dig in for a long-haul research effort. Start figuring out who the good guys are from the bad guys. Which Bible historians have an 'agenda'...which ones are just providing 'straight up' archaeological and historical information. There is no magic wand.

And not everybody is a bad guy except for you, Gary. That's ridiculous.

Stop trusting in 'credentialed' people over what the scriptures say. Your best 'credentialed' source is the Bible.

It sounds like you're rejecting all outside input except your own. That's blatantly unbiblical: God gave gifts to the Christian family...and a balanced Bible diet includes gathering the input from those who potentially have a gift of teaching...and/or from others who have studied the Bible for years and have persuasive arguments and reasoning. Your "lone wolf" concept is contradictory to the Bible.

The Bible says "be ready to give reasons" for your beliefs. In fact, that's what you're attempting to do this very moment. According to you...I shouldn't listen to you. I should go out there and find out for myself. Why then are you contradicting your own "lone wolf" doctrinal position?

If you cannot do your own personal Bible studying -- if you need to be "spoon-fed" by 'credentialed' people -- then - well - I would say that you will never have it "quite right"

Then why are you attempting to "feed" me right now??? You're breaking your own rule.

 

[GaryA]

I like to "spew"? I was just going along, commenting on your various comments that I disagree with and trying to be specific about why I disagree. Didn't realize I was "spewing". I'll try to avoid that in the future...unless...you're equating any countering comments with "spew". Yikes.

So...here's a case in point. I guess more of my "spewing" is about to commence? I believe there IS a "gap" in the 70 Weeks (between the 69th and 70th). And so, I am spewing...er, I mean expressing...disagreement. (?)

You also said the 62 Weeks do not start at the end of the 7th Week. If they do not start at the end of the 7th Week...how is that not a gap?

By saying that there are no 'gaps' in the 70 weeks, I mean that the 70 weeks are one continuous 490 years.

The 62 weeks - beginning in the middle of the 8th week and ending in the middle of the 70th week - do not represent a 'gap' in the 70 weeks.

There is no more significance to the first half of the 8th week than there is to the first half of the 35th week. ( other than the fact that - at the end of it is when the rebuilding of the city ended - which is very significant to the prophecy )

The baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of the 70th week.

The crucifixion occurred in the middle of the 70th week.

~3.5 years later, the 70th week - and thus, the entire 70 weeks ( 490 years ) - ends -- marking the end of the 'Times of the Jews' and the beginning of the 'Times of the Gentiles'.

 

[MattTooFor]

This is where most people go wrong...

I mean...how else do you listen to a sermon at church? Are you then being "spoon-fed"? Forfend the thought!

As to "credentials"...they can play a useful role, in a carefully limited sense. I like to think my dentist has obtained "credentials" in some form of fashion. Likewise, a person who has studied biblical archaeology and/or the background historical events of Bible times...might potentially have useful, helpful information to offer...just as someone who has studied for the ministry at a Bible college might very well have something useful to say during a Sunday sermon.

I would hasten to add...if I'm sitting in the audience (or reading a given book on Bible history) I carefully pick and choose that which I agree or disagree with...just as I carefully pick and choose which of your comments I agree or disagree with.

 

[GaryA]

Well...it's a wild, woolly and dangerous world out there, isn't it though? You have to roll up your sleeves, prepare to expend some mental 'perspiration', and dig in for a long-haul research effort. Start figuring out who the good guys are from the bad guys. Which Bible historians have an 'agenda'...which ones are just providing 'straight up' archaeological and historical information. There is no magic wand.

And not everybody is a bad guy except for you, Gary. That's ridiculous.

It sounds like you're rejecting all outside input except your own. That's blatantly unbiblical: God gave gifts to the Christian family...and a balanced Bible diet includes gathering the input from those who potentially have a gift of teaching...and/or from others who have studied the Bible for years and have persuasive arguments and reasoning. Your "lone wolf" concept is contradictory to the Bible.

The Bible says "be ready to give reasons" for your beliefs. In fact, that's what you're attempting to do this very moment. According to you...I shouldn't listen to you. I should go out there and find out for myself. Why then are you contradicting your own "lone wolf" doctrinal position?

Then why are you attempting to "feed" me right now??? You're breaking your own rule.

I'm not saying any of that...

( Do you see where I underlined the word 'over'...? )

I am not saying that other peoples "opinions" ( because, that is what they are - including mine ) are not worth anything. I am saying that you should not place so much 'emphasis' on other peoples opinions.

I gave you my 'opinion'. The fact that you seem to want to see the same 'opinion' expressed by a 'credentialed' person ( or, maybe, several? ) before you are willing to go study it for yourself suggests that you trust the 'opinion' of "credentials" over what the Bible actually says...

Do your own personal Bible study.

Throw away the 'credentialed-person' crutch.

What is your opinion? ( based on your personal study )

When I want to study something in the scriptures, I study it.

I don't care so much about what the 'credentialed' people say --- because, much of the time - they are wrong...

 

[Johnny_B]

This is for both Matt and Gary, you guys don't think Luke 19:41-44 is the fulfillment of Messiah the Prince coming. This is why Jesus wept, because they didn't know the time of their visitation, the coming of Messiah the Price, this happened the exact date form the command or decree. 26 say after the 62 weeks, it doesn't say from the command to Messiah being cut off, that is after His coming to Jerusalem, that He is cut off, not for Himself. That idea is from Miller I believe I remember when I first started studying prophecy I bought a book on Daniel and Revelation, which had this in it and it was from the adventist church, I took it back and got me money good thing it was a used book store. Miller made some prediction on the time of the rapture as well. To as a side note, this is where the JW's get their eschatology. Charles T Russell was a Millerite.

"And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

 

[MattTooFor]

By saying that there are no 'gaps' in the 70 weeks, I mean that the 70 weeks are one continuous 490 years.

The 62 weeks - beginning in the middle of the 8th week and ending in the middle of the 70th week - do not represent a 'gap' in the 70 weeks.

There is no more significance to the first half of the 8th week than there is to the first half of the 35th week. ( other than the fact that - at the end of it is when the rebuilding of the city ended - which is very significant to the prophecy )

The baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of the 70th week.

The crucifixion occurred in the middle of the 70th week.

~3.5 years later, the 70th week - and thus, the entire 70 weeks ( 490 years ) - ends -- marking the end of the 'Times of the Jews' and the beginning of the 'Times of the Gentiles'.

Well...we're back to Square One -- you're just making a series of assertions. And your "8th Week" thing...what in the world? If you aspire to be a good teacher, you have to make yourself understood, Gary. I may not be the sharpest pencil in the cup...but wow...this "colon" thing, and then this "8th Week" thing, etc...I ain't followin' ya.

 

[GaryA]

I mean...how else do you listen to a sermon at church? Are you then being "spoon-fed"? Forfend the thought!

As to "credentials"...they can play a useful role, in a carefully limited sense. I like to think my dentist has obtained "credentials" in some form of fashion. Likewise, a person who has studied biblical archaeology and/or the background historical events of Bible times...might potentially have useful, helpful information to offer...just as someone who has studied for the ministry at a Bible college might very well have something useful to say during a Sunday sermon.

I would hasten to add...if I'm sitting in the audience (or reading a given book on Bible history) I carefully pick and choose that which I agree or disagree with...just as I carefully pick and choose which of your comments I agree or disagree with.

I am not against discerning the worth of an 'opinion'. I would always encourage anyone to do so.

What I am against is people thinking that any-and-every idea must be backed up by 'credentials' or "it is no good"...

 

[jaybird88]

The Rapture explained in two minutes

after 22 pages and 2 weeks later this is the longest 2 minutes ever.