When does the rapture occur?

VCO · Apr 25, 2015

Strange how a couple of verses in Chapter 14 can prove your whole THEORY of no earthly Kingdom, and the theory of the history of Israel from 2nd century BC to the present day, totally wrong:

Zechariah 14:9-10 (NJB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Then Yahweh will become king of the whole world. When that Day comes, Yahweh will be the one and only and his name the one name.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] The entire country will be transformed into plain, from Geba to Rimmon in the Negeb, but Jerusalem will stand high in her place and be full of people from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the earlier gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses.

Geba, Israel is approximately where C5 is on this map of Israel. Rimmon, Israel is due west of the middle of the Sea of Galilee, D2, half ways to the coast. NOW, does that look like it has already been leveled into a PLAIN by our LORD to you? So much for your theory that it is the history of Israel from 2nd century BC to the present day.

PlainWord · Apr 25, 2015

GaryA said:

If you are right, that Daniel's 70th week ended +/- 3.5 years after Christ was crucified and this started the "the Time of the Gentiles," then we should be able to find some correlation between AD 70, the "42 months" and the Return to the Land. 42 months could be literal or they could represent a year per day. 42 literal months from Aug 4, AD 70 gives us nothing significant. The Jews were still scattered or in the process of being scattered. 42 months as 1,260 years takes us to 1330 AD. I am unaware of anything significant in that year relative to the Jewish people. They were still scattered.

Ezekiel 20:23
Also I raised My hand in an oath to those in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the Gentiles and disperse them throughout the countries

Luke 21:24
And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2
But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

Ezekiel 28:25

‘Thus says the Lord God: “When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob.

The Jews obviously returned to the Land starting in 1948. They took control of Jerusalem in 1967. The process of Jews returning is ongoing. If we subtract 1260 from 1967 we get 707 AD. Nothing significant happened in that year. However, if we subtract 1260 from 1948 we get 688 AD, the year of the Dome of the Rock.

Gentiles are now living side by side with Jews throughout Israel.

PlainWord · Apr 25, 2015

Yet said:

Prepare to be stunned. There is no rapture until after the Great Tribulation is over.

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

popeye said:

Yes - and, for the most part, I view the posts in this thread ( as well as the posts of any similar thread ) simply as different people trying to communicate their view, stance, etc. ( while trying to overcome the limitations of the English language

)

I tend to not take any of it "too personal" -- and, I always endeavor to communicate my perspective in a way that keeps the focus on "the issue at hand" - and, never belittles or slanders anyone for believing differently than I.

Even if we feel it necessary to "call someone out" in defense of the faith -- we should still remember to attack / target the error - and not the person.

If I make a 'pointed' statement to someone ( example: post #1769 ), I always attempt to say it in the context of 'caring brotherly love'.

Although I believe that the final statement in post #1766 was said in a way that was "unnecessarily personal" - not being focused on [ the perceived error ], but being [ a bit of ] an attack on a person -- I choose to "take it" as though he meant it out of concern for what he sees as "a brother in error"...

I "countered" with a statement ( post #1769 ) to "soften" the demeanor that came across in his post -- to let him know that - rather than 'react' to his sarcasm, I would give him something to think about:

"You know - I could possibly be wrong... And, since it is better to be right [ in knowing the truth ] than to be right [ in pride and appearance ], I believe I will continue to "study this out" - searching the scriptures for a better understanding..."

In any case - for the most part, things like that do not "get to me" -- with regard to what people may say in their posts on CC - I am not that "flappable" - it takes a lot to get me "riled up" -- because, I choose to view what people say as their opinion. I respect other people's opinion ( because we all have the right to have one ) - but, not enough to allow it to manipulate me ( emotionally ) into a fit of anger.

When a person "strikes back in anger" ( in their response in a post ) -- it says more about the person responding than it does the 'target' of their response.

I find that:

~ I agree with Elin about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with MarcR about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with PlainWord about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with VCO about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with crossnote about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with popeye about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with valient about some things, and disagree about other things.
etc.

In a way --- I find it very interesting how this happens to occur - "just how the beliefs of all of these people overlap in areas and diverge in others" - [ is ] very interesting indeed! Then there are questions - like:

"How can this person believe 'this certain thing' and 'that certain thing' at the same time?"

Very interesting indeed...

Let us not bicker with each other.
Let us not slander each other.

Let us search for the truth above all things. ( Please understand the context. )

Let us take interest in the discussion for the sake of the understanding of the truth of the scriptures.

Let us have fellowship one with another based on our faith and love in the Lord Jesus Christ.

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

PlainWord said:

It is the last day in the group of days known as the present AGE. After this "last day" the world as we know it, life as we know it, laws as we know them, all come to an End. We are told the present age will end. Further, we have an example of this happening before (Noah's Flood). The next age will be different then this current age.

.
.
.

This "Last Day" is also known as "The Day of the Lord." The Day of the Lord is a well taught OT and NT concept I believe first used by David when he referred to it as "The Day of His Wrath."

.
.
.

There are many more examples of what happens on the Day of the Lord, which is also the Day of Vengeance and also the Day of the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment, and also the Day Israel is completely restored to the Land and all enemies are forceably removed. God and the Saints are glorified, the wicked are punished. All of this happens on the Day the Lord returns which is the LAST DAY. Now, does all of this happen on one literal earth day? Maybe not. But when it starts there will be no doubt about it.

A study of the above events makes clear that all of these things, which will take place, begin to take place and don't stop until they are finished. God is NOT going to do a partial resurrection, judgment and rapture then allow Satan to carry out a Great Tribulation then come back to finish the job. Nothing suggests a break for the Church thus nothing suggests a Pre-Trib Rapture. Satan gets to test all of us (some will fail and some will die) but after this test, God has the final say.

The "Day of the Lord" is referring to the Second Coming of Christ. Do you not believe in a 1000-year reign of Christ? ( I was thinking that you did... )

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

PlainWord said:

What makes you think that Revelation 11:2 has anything [ directly ] to do with 70 A.D.? Also - the phrase 'and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months' does not define the start-to-finish range of time of the 'times of the Gentiles'.

CLUE: Look at the next verse...

Revelation 11:

[SUP]2[/SUP] But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. [SUP]3[/SUP] And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

This is talking about the temple mount.

This is talking about the city of Jerusalem.

I believe you are trying to fit together two puzzle pieces from different areas of the puzzle. ( "not next to each other, touching, with matching edges" )

Also - what makes you think that the forty-two months has anything to do with the "Return to the Land"...?

popeye · Apr 25, 2015

GaryA said:

Yes - and, for the most part, I view the posts in this thread ( as well as the posts of any similar thread ) simply as different people trying to communicate their view, stance, etc. ( while trying to overcome the limitations of the English language

)

I tend to not take any of it "too personal" -- and, I always endeavor to communicate my perspective in a way that keeps the focus on "the issue at hand" - and, never belittles or slanders anyone for believing differently than I.

Even if we feel it necessary to "call someone out" in defense of the faith -- we should still remember to attack / target the error - and not the person.

If I make a 'pointed' statement to someone ( example: post #1769 ), I always attempt to say it in the context of 'caring brotherly love'.

Although I believe that the final statement in post #1766 was said in a way that was "unnecessarily personal" - not being focused on [ the perceived error ], but being [ a bit of ] an attack on a person -- I choose to "take it" as though he meant it out of concern for what he sees as "a brother in error"...

I "countered" with a statement ( post #1769 ) to "soften" the demeanor that came across in his post -- to let him know that - rather than 'react' to his sarcasm, I would give him something to think about:

"You know - I could possibly be wrong... And, since it is better to be right [ in knowing the truth ] than to be right [ in pride and appearance ], I believe I will continue to "study this out" - searching the scriptures for a better understanding..."

In any case - for the most part, things like that do not "get to me" -- with regard to what people may say in their posts on CC - I am not that "flappable" - it takes a lot to get me "riled up" -- because, I choose to view what people say as their opinion. I respect other people's opinion ( because we all have the right to have one ) - but, not enough to allow it to manipulate me ( emotionally ) into a fit of anger.

When a person "strikes back in anger" ( in their response in a post ) -- it says more about the person responding than it does the 'target' of their response.

I find that:

~ I agree with Elin about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with MarcR about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with PlainWord about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with VCO about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with crossnote about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with popeye about some things, and disagree about other things.
~ I agree with valient about some things, and disagree about other things.
etc.

In a way --- I find it very interesting how this happens to occur - "just how the beliefs of all of these people overlap in areas and diverge in others" - [ is ] very interesting indeed! Then there are questions - like:

"How can this person believe 'this certain thing' and 'that certain thing' at the same time?"

Very interesting indeed...

Let us not bicker with each other.
Let us not slander each other.

Let us search for the truth above all things. ( Please understand the context. )

Let us take interest in the discussion for the sake of the understanding of the truth of the scriptures.

Let us have fellowship one with another based on our faith and love in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well said sir.

backs away slowly.Touches llanyard with pinky,making sure gun will clear holster,adjusts hat,and watches the eyes,"always watch the eyes" he whispers to himself,anticipating the opponents sudden movement.......any movement..........mind racing he then gets a wild thought......."I wonder if he will he have a cup of coffee with me instead??

popeye · Apr 25, 2015

PlainWord said:

Well then it could be at any moment since you guys compare todays trib with the GT.

Jeff_56 · Apr 25, 2015

truthfully, for multitudes of people, it occurs (in effect/ GOD'S TIME) when someone dies.

looking for it any day now, or at any discernible date in the future, is futile here on this forum.

too many members of schools that don't care are present and posting rapaciously. (or otherwise).

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

popeye said:

"But --- we have not even gotten to the end of it yet..."

popeye · Apr 25, 2015

GaryA said:

I believe that the [ general, default ] "sense and tense" of the word 'last' is relative, not absolute.

It is only absolute when it is used in a way that specifically defines it as such.

In terms of perspective:

It is 'absolute' within the group of days.

It is 'relative' outside of the group of days.

The "last day" can only be defined by the group of days whereby it is the last day of that group of days.

I believe that the context of scripture must define what group of days the "last day" is the last day of.

There are no more days in a group of days after the last day of that group of days; however, that does not mean that there are no days existant after that last day.

In other words - unless it is specifically defined as "the last existant day" - there exists an 'outside' perspective; thereby making it a 'relative' term....

Make sense?

Yep,it has to be,because what they are calling "last day" is in no way a "last existing day"

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

popeye said:

Exactly!

( "Well said sir." )

Too many times too many people fail to think like this before they draw their weapon and fire...

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

GaryA said:

popeye said:

"Let us keep our guns in our holsters and have coffee instead..."

VCO · Apr 25, 2015

I caught my own mistake, there were two towns named Rimmon.
One North of Jerusalem, west of the Sea of Galilee, and one
South of Jerusalem, also called En Rimmon and also known as Ein Kuhla,
which was west of the Southern end of the Dead Sea in hill country that
is somewhat mountainous. While Geba is west of the northern end of
the Dead Sea. Most likely it is the En Rimmon south of Jerusalem that
this verse refers to:

Zechariah 14:9-10 (HCSB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] On that day Yahweh will become King over all the earth—
Yahweh alone, and His name alone.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be changed into a plain.
But ⌊Jerusalem⌋ will be raised up and will remain on its site from the Benjamin Gate to the
place of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal
winepresses.

While En Rimmon, is nothing more than a few ruins off of Highway 31 a few miles east of
the modern day city of Lehavim; the Geba of Bible times was Northeast of Jerusalem several
miles, and the modern day village of Jaba is nearly built on the same location.
En Rimmon would have been west of Beth-zur just off of this map:

My understanding of the Scriptures above is that Christ (Yahweh in the Flesh) at His Second Coming
will take His place as KING of the earth. He will flat all the land between Geba and En Rimmon into
a Plain, most likely a fertile plain; as HE sets up HIS thousand year Earthly Kingdom. Jerusalem
will remain at it's current height, Temple Mount and all.

Currently, if you fly over that area in Israel, this is what that terrain looks like:

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

OOPS!

GaryA said:

Sorry --- I did not write this correctly...

The 70 years begin / began at the point in time of 'the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem' -- not the time that the prophecy was given to Daniel.

In that line, and the one that follows it, I was thinking with regard to a zero-time reference point at the start of the 70 weeks.

GaryA · Apr 25, 2015

VCO said:

I am fully aware that the Jews want to build another temple, and that they have the means to "go ahead with it" - red heifer and all...

I am saying that I believe that God is not going to allow them to build it.

( Otherwise, at the very absolute least, God does / will not regard it as valid. )

KJV1611 · Apr 25, 2015

VCO said:

I caught my own mistake, there were two towns named Rimmon.
One North of Jerusalem, west of the Sea of Galilee, and one
South of Jerusalem, also called En Rimmon and also known as Ein Kuhla,
which was west of the Southern end of the Dead Sea in hill country that
is somewhat mountainous. While Geba is west of the northern end of
the Dead Sea. Most likely it is the En Rimmon south of Jerusalem that
this verse refers to:

Zechariah 14:9-10 (HCSB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] On that day Yahweh will become King over all the earth—
Yahweh alone, and His name alone.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be changed into a plain.
But ⌊Jerusalem⌋ will be raised up and will remain on its site from the Benjamin Gate to the
place of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal
winepresses.

While En Rimmon, is nothing more than a few ruins off of Highway 31 a few miles east of
the modern day city of Lehavim; the Geba of Bible times was Northeast of Jerusalem several
miles, and the modern day village of Jaba is nearly built on the same location.
En Rimmon would have been west of Beth-zur just off of this map:

My understanding of the Scriptures above is that Christ (Yahweh in the Flesh) at His Second Coming
will take His place as KING of the earth. He will flat all the land between Geba and En Rimmon into
a Plain, most likely a fertile plain; as HE sets up HIS thousand year Earthly Kingdom. Jerusalem
will remain at it's current height, Temple Mount and all.

Currently, if you fly over that area in Israel, this is what that terrain looks like:

Zechariah 14 is about the first coming of Christ, the day of the Lord... There are 12 hours in the day and 12 hours in the night. The 12 tribes are the night and the 12 disciples are the day.

valiant · Apr 25, 2015

VCO said:

which is precisely what Jesus Christ has done. The earthly kingdom is the present Kingly Rule of God on earth

this was eschatological language fulfilled in the raising of Jerusalem into heaven (Gal 4.20 ff Heb 12.20-22; Rev) and the gathering in of God's people.

VCO · Apr 26, 2015

KJV1611 said:

The Central Mountain Range is YET to be flattened into a Plain. OBVIOUSLY IT IS AT THE SECOND COMING TO SET UP HIS EARTHLY KINGDOM.

GaryA · Apr 26, 2015

crossnote said:

Most people don't do their 'own personal study' and end up with whatever they were taught to believe...

When does the rapture occur?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

GaryA

Guest

GaryA

Guest

GaryA

Guest

popeye

Guest

popeye

Guest

Banned

GaryA

Guest

popeye

Guest

GaryA

Guest

GaryA

Guest

Senior Member

GaryA

Guest

GaryA

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

GaryA

Guest