Question for those who believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture

  • 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.
TabinRivCA

TabinRivCA

Well-known member
#101
Oct 23, 2018
12,835
10,395
113
#101
Musicmaster said:
So, faced with the dichotomy in your theological viewpoint on this topic from the basis of demonstrated scripture, you're going to stick with your personal interpretation of Paul's meaning, all at the exclusion of the very names upon that city, and other verses I have presented?

Well, nothing new about that...

Go for it if it makes you feel better. It seems more a matter of pride from what I'm seeing in your rationale, but some might say that I'm biased because I'm Israeli, but it is what it is.

MM
Click to expand...
Correction, I don't 'have a personal interpretation of Paul's meaning' I'm simply stating a Bible ref and a call out for Scripture to back your premise re wicked Babylon. You seem to be lacking in tolerance when you label or critique someone who is simply quoting Scripture. It's 'prideful' to know Scripture?
Also, when I asked for a Scripture to back your take on wicked Babylon being ancient Jerusalem, I'm open to learning. And btw, I'm of 50% Jewish ancestry myself and think it major that in all we do, to do what Jesus said, 'To love God and love others with all our hearts'.
That's a true follower of Christ.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#102
Jul 3, 2015
58,686
28,075
113
#102
Musicmaster said:
This is the first resurrection, as is shown here: Revelation 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but
they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The etherealists, however, see that in an entirely different light than the clear language spoken, making it unrecognizable.

MM
Click to expand...

Revelation 20:4-6
Thank you for the inspiration! I hope you and yours are well .:)
 
Musicmaster

Musicmaster

Active member
#103
Feb 8, 2021
816
162
43
#103
TabinRivCA said:
Correction, I don't 'have a personal interpretation of Paul's meaning' I'm simply stating a Bible ref and a call out for Scripture to back your premise re wicked Babylon. You seem to be lacking in tolerance when you label or critique someone who is simply quoting Scripture. It's 'prideful' to know Scripture?
Click to expand...
Not at all. The problem is when anyone attached meaning to a statement beyond its intent. So, did you or did you not intend to try and use 2 Corinthians 11:2 as your proof text that the Church is the bride of Christ, when in fact I showed otherwise, which leads to the inevitable inclusion that what Paul meant in that one verse was not a replacement of Israel with the Church as the bride, but that Paul was simply using comparative language given to his audience for relationship of a sort.

I already posted the verses concerning the names on that city, which were the very names of a people at whom was directed the very literal language for the bride of Christ and the designation thereof.

Sorry, but it's not easy to take lightly the mass exodus from the very words and meaning within scripture that remain ignored so that replacement theology keeps its foothold where it clearly does not belong.

Also, when I asked for a Scripture to back your take on wicked Babylon being ancient Jerusalem, I'm open to learning. And btw, I'm of 50% Jewish ancestry myself and think it major that in all we do, to do what Jesus said, 'To love God and love others with all our hearts'.
That's a true follower of Christ.
Click to expand...
I posted the verses in post #67, as stated before. Perhaps you did not see that, but they are there.

MM
 
Genez

Genez

Junior Member
#104
Oct 12, 2017
2,206
308
83
#104
Musicmaster said:
I would recommend your being more...inquisitive, because I presented from scripture the VERY strong case for the fact that replacement theology is absolutely wrong, especially given that the body of Christ is NOT going to dwell in the New Jerusalem, but rather in Heavenly places. Your lack for wanting to believe scripture is your problem, not mine.

Best of luck to you, because you're going to need it...

MM
Click to expand...
We are going to dwell in fabulous resurrection bodies.... wherever we may find God having us to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.