When does the rapture occur?
- Thread starter Elin
- 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.
Many think they are Elijah and either Enoch or Moses. But, the two witnesses are described as follows:
Rev 11:
[SUP]4 [/SUP]These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth.
If you notice, the two witnesses are not identified as human or men. However, they are said to have bodies and said to be killed by the "Beast" who ascends from the bottomless pit and wages WAR against them. War isn't typically waged against two people. Therefore the passage is most likely spiritual and not literal.
The two witnesses are most likely the Church and Israel. The church is identified as a lampstand(s) earlier in Revelation 1:
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches.
Zech 4 states:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Then I answered and said to him, “What are these two olive trees—at the right of the lampstand and at its left?” [SUP]
12 [/SUP]And I further answered and said to him, “What are these two olive branches that drip into the receptaclesof the two gold pipes from which the golden oil drains?”
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Then he answered me and said, “Do you not know what these are?”
And I said, “No, my lord.”
[SUP]14 [/SUP]So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.”
So Zechariah and John use the same description of olive trees and lampstands and that they stand beside the Lord of the whole earth. We know from Romans 11 that Paul describes the Gentile Church as being a wild olive tree "grafted" in with the natural olive tree and that Israel and the church will one day become ONE.
If you consider that the "Beast" wages war first with Israel then with her offspring it seems clear that there are two witnesses on earth today who declare the true God and those are Israel and the church. Further proof of this is that the symbol of the two olive trees and two lampstands are now in use by Israel. The below symbol is a perfect match of both Zechariah and Revelation.
If you look close you will see this symbol behind Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Rev 11:
[SUP]4 [/SUP]These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth.
If you notice, the two witnesses are not identified as human or men. However, they are said to have bodies and said to be killed by the "Beast" who ascends from the bottomless pit and wages WAR against them. War isn't typically waged against two people. Therefore the passage is most likely spiritual and not literal.
The two witnesses are most likely the Church and Israel. The church is identified as a lampstand(s) earlier in Revelation 1:
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches.
Zech 4 states:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Then I answered and said to him, “What are these two olive trees—at the right of the lampstand and at its left?” [SUP]
12 [/SUP]And I further answered and said to him, “What are these two olive branches that drip into the receptaclesof the two gold pipes from which the golden oil drains?”
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Then he answered me and said, “Do you not know what these are?”
And I said, “No, my lord.”
[SUP]14 [/SUP]So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.”
So Zechariah and John use the same description of olive trees and lampstands and that they stand beside the Lord of the whole earth. We know from Romans 11 that Paul describes the Gentile Church as being a wild olive tree "grafted" in with the natural olive tree and that Israel and the church will one day become ONE.
If you consider that the "Beast" wages war first with Israel then with her offspring it seems clear that there are two witnesses on earth today who declare the true God and those are Israel and the church. Further proof of this is that the symbol of the two olive trees and two lampstands are now in use by Israel. The below symbol is a perfect match of both Zechariah and Revelation.
If you look close you will see this symbol behind Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Last edited:
G
The below symbol is a perfect match of both Zechariah and Revelation. { "No - I don't think so..." }
( Besides - this emblem - at best - only represents Israel - not the Church also. )
Anyone want to look up what it says at the bottom of the emblem?
Last edited:
I see what perhaps may be two olive branches ( not trees ); I see only one lampstand...
( Besides - this symbol - at best - only represents Israel - not the Church also. )
( Besides - this symbol - at best - only represents Israel - not the Church also. )
Romans 11:
[SUP]19 [/SUP]You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” [SUP]20 [/SUP]Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. [SUP]21 [/SUP]For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Israel is one lampstand, the church is the other.
Last edited:
It is referred to as the resurrection and occurs at the return of Christ...
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
P
Unprovable and biblically reckless.
Please show us where there is ANY deliverance AFTER judgement and a consequential uturn as they RETURN to the same location they just left.
(remarkable anyone could dream up such a pattern as if God lost his mind or something)
IOW,AFTER THE FLOOD,god deals with Noah in deliverance......comes and takes him out of earth. AFTER SODOM burns,abraham brings lot out and uturns back to sodom to set up shop. (this is remarkably insane)
Last days deception would emphasise "tribulation" and minimise the bride /groom dimension
G
I was not actually quoting someone else. If I do quote someone else, I usually give attribution at the end of the quote - in the form of a hyphen followed by the name of the person / entity it came from ( with the possible exception of [ something like ] a well-known saying that most people would recognize - where, leaving it unattributed is for the purpose of 'effect' - i.e., people must "get it" for the sake of 'effect' ( Very rarely do I do something like this. ) ).
There are two ways that I generally indicate that I have purposely written something that is a departure from [ normal / common ] proper English ( as it is supposed to be written ). The italicized sentence in parentheses above is an example of one of them. The other is set-apart, in italics, and quoted - like in post #825.
Both of these two ways are intended to indicate that what I have written should be read as though I had said it verbally -- essentially, a 'verbal' statement inserted into a 'written' communication.
Does this make sense?
If not...
Please try to understand that -- where - and when - I come from -- the English language was taught in such a way as to differentiate the "proper English" way of writing it from the "slang English" way of speaking it. It was taught that "strict adherence to the rules of grammar are necessary to writing proper English"; departing from it was not allowed in "proper English" writing.
I am not perfect, and my "southern roots" ( and other things? ) have obviously affected my writing over the years; however, the "proper English" teaching was ingrained into me very well - and, I always try to write "proper English" as best as I can.
For the purpose of trying to help others understand more clearly [ some of ] the 'nuances' ... I sometimes use a lot of quote marks, brackets, etc. to accentuate my writing.
I would say more; however, I must go now...
There are two ways that I generally indicate that I have purposely written something that is a departure from [ normal / common ] proper English ( as it is supposed to be written ). The italicized sentence in parentheses above is an example of one of them. The other is set-apart, in italics, and quoted - like in post #825.
Both of these two ways are intended to indicate that what I have written should be read as though I had said it verbally -- essentially, a 'verbal' statement inserted into a 'written' communication.
Does this make sense?
If not...
Please try to understand that -- where - and when - I come from -- the English language was taught in such a way as to differentiate the "proper English" way of writing it from the "slang English" way of speaking it. It was taught that "strict adherence to the rules of grammar are necessary to writing proper English"; departing from it was not allowed in "proper English" writing.
I am not perfect, and my "southern roots" ( and other things? ) have obviously affected my writing over the years; however, the "proper English" teaching was ingrained into me very well - and, I always try to write "proper English" as best as I can.
For the purpose of trying to help others understand more clearly [ some of ] the 'nuances' ... I sometimes use a lot of quote marks, brackets, etc. to accentuate my writing.
I would say more; however, I must go now...
Last edited:
J
The word "Bible" isn't in the Bible. "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. The Greek for the rapture is "harpazo," means "to catch up, to snatch away, or to take out." It is "rapio" in the Latin Vulgate. But what I've never understood is what the word being in the English Bible has to do with the price of tea in China. So what? The truths about the rapture should be removed from the Bible? Since there's no "Trinity" word, we should discount Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Hey! No word "Bible," throw the whole Book out? Really. I've never understood this silly, desperation argument.