The Falling Away - Is this the rapture?
- Thread starter DavidTree
- Start date
-
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.
The Lord Jesus Christ said: "I am the Resurrection" - therefore i seek after His Resurrection
Our Lord never said I am the rapture - but you depart from His Word and seek after a false pre-trib rapture.
This is why you have not received the Word in your heart as our Lord spoke in His Revelation.
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them.
Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Revelation chapter 20: 4-6
Our Lord never said I am the rapture - but you depart from His Word and seek after a false pre-trib rapture.
This is why you have not received the Word in your heart as our Lord spoke in His Revelation.
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them.
Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Revelation chapter 20: 4-6
-
1
- Show all
"The coming of Christ and our gathering to him"- has nothing to do with the coming of Christ.
clear as mud. And mildy amusing.We are waiting for the second coming next. Jesus in glory.
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(Titus 2:13 KJV)
When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
(Col 3:4 KJV)
-
1
- Show all
PROVE your statement, or retract it
...(only for the sake of the readers).
As I do NOT find your statement to be FACTUAL at all.
Your statement is UNTRUE.
Prove otherwise, if you believe you're expressing a true fact.
YES , it does !
Every LISTED WORD following that statement (in that Section) GOES WITH IT! (showing on TWO PAGES, pgs 24 and 25)
-
1
- Show all
No. It's about them MISSING THE WRATH OF THE DOTL. The rapture is INCIDENTAL , a necessary pre-emptive act. An inevitable phenomenon fully supported by all the relevant statements of Jesus and the NT. Furthermore, the rapture is mandated by the unchanging nature of God Himself, who CANNOT PUNISH THE RIGHTEOUS WITH THE WICKED.
<<<It's also about them not missing second coming and found in verses 1>>>
Saying that a post-trib Church ON EARTH is ???somehow going to miss the second coming??? proves that your premise is absolutely absurd. That is how messed up you are as regards the CORRECT exegesis of 2Thes 2.
<<<It's also about them not missing second coming and found in verses 1>>>
Saying that a post-trib Church ON EARTH is ???somehow going to miss the second coming??? proves that your premise is absolutely absurd. That is how messed up you are as regards the CORRECT exegesis of 2Thes 2.
-
1
- Show all
"
[what sources did people use as study aids BEFORE 1890, for example ]
[what sources did people use as study aids BEFORE 1890, for example
]
From that in 1632 John Buxtorf published his Concordance, Concordantia Bibliorum Ebraicae.
The first English Bible Concordance was in 1540. The Concordance of the New Testament Most Necessary to be Had, by Thomas Gybson
Just to list a few .
Concordances in history link: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Concordance
I wentt o the link provided and it's a fact that apostasia is not associated with wording, "Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most cases superceded:"
Anyone can click on link and see that what I said is true and your claim is false. You took that sentence and simply added on apostasia and apostasis. It's a HIGHLY misleading thing to do. If apostasia and apostasis are even in there at all, they are FAR AWAY from the quoted sentence. I read 3 pages passed the sentence and apostasia and apostasis were not there. This is a contentual fallacy where you took something not addressed and made it seem that "Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most cases superceded:" was talking about them when it wasn't.
lol, incidental and necessary are words that have opposite meanings. You can't use them both for same event.
It's not my premise. The people Paul was writing to thought that. If you understood the passage properly you would already know that. Sheesh, you can't even use incidental and necessary in correct sense. You really have no idea what you are saying. You just ramble nonsense and pretend it is meaningful. Do you take any medicines that might be affecting you? If so, please talk to your doctor about your cognitive reasoning issues.
It's not my premise. The people Paul was writing to thought that. If you understood the passage properly you would already know that. Sheesh, you can't even use incidental and necessary in correct sense. You really have no idea what you are saying. You just ramble nonsense and pretend it is meaningful. Do you take any medicines that might be affecting you? If so, please talk to your doctor about your cognitive reasoning issues.