The Rapture explained in two minutes

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
miknik5

miknik5

Senior Member
#581
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
#581
Dan_473 said:
I think Jesus did know some things about the future.

he knew Peter would live to be an old man.

Jesus said he would send the spirit. It looks to me like he had some idea of when.
Click to expand...
HE knew
but HE only said what THE FATHER said

and the hour and the day will not be given to any man because if we knew, we could "prepare" ourselves at the last minute

just like the foolish virgins did

and "preparing" oneself at the last minute kind of says something about the bride not being ever ready and waiting for her BELOVED
 
Last edited:
miknik5

miknik5

Senior Member
#582
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
#582
None of us are supposed to know
were supposed to wait by our HOPE in HIM
And HIS WORDS and forewarning to HIS CHURCH/BRIDE/BODY/FLOCK are for those yesterday, today and tomorrow
until the full numbers IN CHRIST are complete
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#583
#583
Dan_473 said:
If you are unable to follow what I'm saying
Click to expand...
To the extent you are expressing yourself, I'm following you just fine. You're just a bit confused when you say Jesus wasn't "necessarily" being truthful when He looked Peter, James and John in the eye and said "you will go through the great tribulation...but let Me add the caveat that I do not know the day or hour so...I am speaking to 'you who are My followers'"

And you have yet to describe how this connects to any overall argument. As I said, I'm starting to think you're just 'playing around'. You're a bit of an odd bird - LOL. You need to cough it up, guy. What is your main point? Are you trying to salvage PreTrib? What's going on here?

Mark is the second Gospel by tradition, it's not a scriptural thing, imo.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. There isn't the 'sequence' you're arguing for. Another of your arguments that seems to have no point...other than being argumentative?

He was telling the truth. But the language doesn't require all (or any) disciples to have the possibility of seeing the AoD.
Click to expand...
Then He wouldn't have been telling the truth.

And the "language"? The "language" was "you will go through great tribulation". ​Again, where is your overall point or argument? Do you have one?
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#584
#584
Dan_473 said:
I think Jesus did know some things about the future.
Click to expand...
You think so? What doctrine were you hoping to base on your guesses about what Jesus did or didn't know? What...is your over all argument? Where are you trying to take this? Are you saying Jesus made an inaccurate statement when He said "no one knows the day or hour"?

The believers of the first generation of the Christian era did know they would have to hang in there until at least the end of Peter's life. That doesn't make untruthful Jesus' statement that "no one knows the day of hour".

Again, what is your overall argument?
 
miknik5

miknik5

Senior Member
#585
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
#585
I think the overall argument is that CHRIST had much more to say but HE who sent HIM
is reliable and HE only said what THE FATHER gave HIM to say

And when HE spoke to James, John, Andrew and Peter, HE wasn't only addressing James, John, Peter and Andrew

by the way weren't James and John older and younger "brothers", just as Andrew and Peter were older and younger "brothers"?
 
Last edited:
miknik5

miknik5

Senior Member
#586
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
#586
If I may, I have a question for you
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#587
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#587
MattTooFor said:
You're just a bit confused when you say Jesus wasn't "necessarily" being truthful when He looked Peter, James and John in the eye and said "you will go through the great tribulation...but let Me add the caveat that I do not know the day or hour so...I am speaking to 'you who are My followers'"
Click to expand...
I don't think I said that. If I did, please give the post number.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#588
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#588
well, MattTooFor,
in response to all your other posts to me on this page,

my point is as I write above---
I'm saying that when Jesus says
' So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel'
it doesn't necessarily mean that those immediately present had a possibility of seeing the AoD.

I've presented my reasons. If you're unable to follow them, I don't think there's benefit in going over them several times... I'm happy leaving it at that.
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#589
#589
Dan_473 said:
I don't think I said that. If I did, please give the post number.
Click to expand...
Think again! It was in the post I was responding to when I made the comment.
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#590
#590
Dan_473 said:
If you're unable to follow them, I don't think there's benefit in going over them several times... I'm happy leaving it at that.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm "following" you alright. I get it - you're misunderstanding (or should I add quotation marks? - "misunderstanding") Jesus' words.

But that wasn't my question. I'm asking you where this is leading? I was interested in what your overall, larger argument is? You're not going to reveal that? Are you keeping it a secret? Otherwise, are you just being uselessly argumentative again? That's the part I don't get. I certainly can see your confusion ("confusion") about Jesus' words.

Just in case this actually is a sincere effort on your part, let me clear this up for you:

1) Jesus says: "So when you see the abomination of desolation...".

2) He has now stated clearly and directly, that Peter, James and John HAVE THE POSSIBILITY of seeing this event.

3) You now step in and say: No, it isn't "neccesarily" true for Jesus to say the disciples had that possibility.

So, whether you realize it or not makes no difference - the fact is you're saying Jesus' claim isn't neccesarily true.

Can't do that, guy! Can't contradict the Bible. Can't turn Jesus' into a false teacher. That's against the rules.

In any event, I ask again -- where are you hoping this leads? What is your larger argument? Is there none?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#591
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#591
MattTooFor said:
Think again! It was in the post I was responding to when I made the comment.
Click to expand...
here's the post I believe you were responding to


Dan_473 said:
Mark is the second Gospel by tradition, it's not a scriptural thing, imo.

the 'privately' could mean apart from the other disciples, or apart from the crowds. Comparing the other Gospel accounts, the second looks better to me.


my point is as I write above---
I'm saying that when Jesus says
' So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel'
it doesn't necessarily mean that those immediately present had a possibility of seeing the AoD.



'Jesus wasn't "necessarily" telling the accurate truth?' He was telling the truth. But the language doesn't require all (or any) disciples to have the possibility of seeing the AoD.


I'm not trying to pull anything out of a fire. If you are unable to follow what I'm saying, then I'm happy leafing it at this--- as I read it, it doesn't necessarily mean that those immediately present had a possibility of seeing the AoD.
Click to expand...


I don't see the following words

------------------
...Jesus wasn't "necessarily" being truthful when He looked Peter, James and John in the eye and said "you will go through the great tribulation...but let Me add the caveat that I do not know the day or hour so...I am speaking to 'you who are My followers'".

--------------






now, I do see the words 'Jesus wasn't "necessarily" telling the accurate truth?'
Those words are from your post 574.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#592
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#592
MattTooFor said:
Oh, I'm "following" you alright. I get it - you're misunderstanding (or should I add quotation marks? - "misunderstanding") Jesus' words.

But that wasn't my question. I'm asking you where this is leading? I was interested in what your overall, larger argument is? You're not going to reveal that? Are you keeping it a secret? Otherwise, are you just being uselessly argumentative again? That's the part I don't get. I certainly can see your confusion ("confusion") about Jesus' words.

Just in case this actually is a sincere effort on your part, let me clear this up for you:

1) Jesus says: "So when you see the abomination of desolation...".

2) He has now stated clearly and directly, that Peter, James and John HAVE THE POSSIBILITY of seeing this event.

3) You now step in and say: No, it isn't "neccesarily" true for Jesus to say the disciples had that possibility.

So, whether you realize it or not makes no difference - the fact is you're saying Jesus' claim isn't neccesarily true.

Can't do that, guy! Can't contradict the Bible. Can't turn Jesus' into a false teacher. That's against the rules.

In any event, I ask again -- where are you hoping this leads? What is your larger argument? Is there none?
Click to expand...
hi MattTooFor,

well, it's obvious to me that we're just not communicating here.

Peace, man!
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#593
#593
Dan_473 said:
I don't see the following words
Click to expand...
Wait a minute - those were my words, not your words - lol. You're just a little confused. That's OK.

So, here's your quote: it doesn't necessarily mean that those immediately present had a possibility of seeing the AoD.

Jesus stated point-blank, the disciples "had a possibility of seeing the AoD".

You counter Jesus by saying they didn't necessarily "have a possibility of seeing the AoD".

Can't do that. Among Bible students, rebutting the Bible is considered a 'no-no'!
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#594
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#594
MattTooFor said:
Wait a minute - those were my words, not your words - lol.
Click to expand...
yes, I said they were your words.


You're just a little confused. That's OK.

So, here's your quote: it doesn't necessarily mean that those immediately present had a possibility of seeing the AoD.
Click to expand...

I did say that, but that's not the alleged quote I asked you to give a post number for.



Jesus stated point-blank, the disciples "had a possibility of seeing the AoD".

You counter Jesus by saying they didn't necessarily "have a possibility of seeing the AoD".

Can't do that. Among Bible students, rebutting the Bible is considered a 'no-no'!
Click to expand...
again, we're just not communicating here.

Peace, man!
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#595
#595
Dan_473 said:
again, we're just not communicating here.
Click to expand...
I'd say I'm communicating just fine. You're the one who seems to be having some difficulty. I had a very simple question. Quite odd that you won't take a minute to answer:

Totally setting aside, for the moment, your idea that Jesus wasn't "necessarily" correct in directly telling the disciples they had a possibility of encountering the "AoD"...

..I still just wanted to know what your larger argument was? What is the point of arguing that?

In other words, this thread has been about my Olivet Discourse emphasis and I wouldn't want someone walking away, pretending they have some powerful argument stashed somewhere (presumably, in favor of PreTrib) when they actually have no such thing.

I've seen that "powerful, pregnant silence" tactic before. It's actually a type of fallacy. Not saying that's what you're doing. Just don't understand why you won't divulge. What's the big secret? You took a minute to post what you did post just now. But won't take a minute to share your secret?

And if there IS no larger point...what are you doing other than being deliberately, unpleasantly argumentative? I don't get it.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#597
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#597
MattTooFor said:
I'd say I'm communicating just fine. You're the one who seems to be having some difficulty. I had a very simple question. Quite odd that you won't take a minute to answer:

Totally setting aside, for the moment, your idea that Jesus wasn't "necessarily" correct in directly telling the disciples they had a possibility of encountering the "AoD"...

..I still just wanted to know what your larger argument was? What is the point of arguing that?

In other words, this thread has been about my Olivet Discourse emphasis and I wouldn't want someone walking away, pretending they have some powerful argument stashed somewhere (presumably, in favor of PreTrib) when they actually have no such thing.

I've seen that "powerful, pregnant silence" tactic before. It's actually a type of fallacy. Not saying that's what you're doing. Just don't understand why you won't divulge. What's the big secret? You took a minute to post what you did post just now. But won't take a minute to share your secret?

And if there IS no larger point...what are you doing other than being deliberately, unpleasantly argumentative? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I've stated my overall point several times.




here's what I mean by communication.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

especially 2, 7, and 8.


you're putting ideas out there, and I'm just not able to decode them

and

I'm putting ideas out there, and you're just not able to decode them


communication takes two, and again, it's just not happening.


Peace, man!
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#598
#598
Dan_473 said:
you're putting ideas out there, and I'm just not able to decode them

and

I'm putting ideas out there, and you're just not able to decode them


communication takes two, and again, it's just not happening.
Click to expand...
There's nothing to "decode" on my part.

As far as I'm concerned, communication only takes one person. I'm communicating just fine. I'm conveying my question in simple terms. Two-way communication...yes, that does require two people. That isn't happening so far. I don't need to look "communication" up in a dictionary. Good grief.

I went back and looked at all your posts from when this sidebar began. You state no reason or purpose for your argument...that the disciples didn't "necessarily" have a possibility of seeing the end time events.

Again, my question:

If what you are saying were true...that Jesus foreknew they had no chance of seeing these events, even though He directly told them they did...how, if at all, would it effect the question of rapture timing...PreTrib or PreWrath? That's all the explanation I'm asking.

You keep coming back and posting...so I assume you want to communicate.

As a separate issue (and a rather interesting one)...I would argue you're not understanding how Jesus allowed Himself to be limited in His humanity. As a baby, for example, He didn't get to just immediately know all language. His knowledge had to progress. Luke 2:52 says He "grew in wisdom". He was limited in His humanity. Therefore, when Jesus told the disciples they were to look out for the "AoD"...I would assume that His foreknowledge was appropriately obscured so that He could truthfully make that statement.
 
M

MattTooFor

Guest
#599
#599
Dan_473 said:
you're putting ideas out there, and I'm just not able to decode them
Click to expand...
By the way, here's another thought: If we're going to say that Jesus foreknew this and foreknew that...OK, at the time of His Olivet Discourse, did Jesus foreknow the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215?

If you want to arbitrarily claim He foreknew this or that...so as to make inaccurate His statements to the disciples...where does it end?

If Jesus had complete foreknowledge in His limited human state at that time...what would have prevented Him from seeing all the future events of human history...right up to the very day of His return? He does a mental checklist and realizes He can see every future event...up to (let's say) the year 2045, June 23rd...at which point He draws a blank.

Whoops, in His limited humanity and because you're conferring total foreknowledge on Jesus in that limited state...He could have therefore easily and breezily deduced the very day He is claiming He did NOT know.

Food for thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.