The "Rapture"?
- Thread starter GenJesus
- 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.
See Galatians about the Jewish converts that were causing trouble in the Church which Paul had a rebuke for. I call them Judaizers, because of their attempt to extend Pharisee doctrine into Christian doctrine per Acts 15 to the Gentile believers in order to be saved, one example being that of flesh circumcision.
The prosperity movement is part of the pre-trib rapture movement. That's who's historically been preaching it the most, especially on TV. I even remember Oral Roberts in Oklahoma when I was younger go up into his tower and proclaim he would not come down until his ministry received something like 8 million dollars!
Instead of that kind of thing making you angry at me, it ought to make you angry at your pre-trib rapture preachers that do that.
Instead of that kind of thing making you angry at me, it ought to make you angry at your pre-trib rapture preachers that do that.
The idea of being "caught up" per 1 Thess.4 is not the specific problem with the false pre-trib rapture doctrine. The problem is pre-trib's adding the false idea that the harpazo ("caught up") happens prior to the tribulation when no such idea is written in that 1 Thess.4 Scripture. The pre-trib preachers simply keep repeating the prior to the trib idea until those who heed them believe them instead the written Scripture.
The 1 Thess.4 "caught up" event is... the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. It matches the gathering of the saints Jesus proclaimed in His Olivet Discourse of Matt.24 and Mark 13. There is only a one-time coming of Jesus to gather His Church on the 'day of the Lord' as written, and that is the final day of this world at the end of the tribulation, which is when the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night, as written.
Your notion you got from the pre-trib rapture preachers that the harpazo is separate from the Second Coming is false. Matt.24:29-31 covers the gathering of the asleep saints Jesus brings with Him per 1 Thess.4, and Mark 13:24-27 covers the saints still alive on earth being caught up on that same day, aligning with 1 Thess.4 perfectly.
In John 14:1-4, that's about the abodes in God's House on earth per Ezekiel 40 thru 47 that is to manifest with Jesus' return to the area of Jerusalem on earth. The dimensions of that House and its location on earth in the middle east is given in Ezekiel 47. You ought to try reading it.
In 1 Cor.15:51-58, that is describing the same events of 1 Thess.4 about the harpazo ("caught up"). 1 Cor.15 is about the resurrection on the day of Christ's second coming, which is what the raising of the asleep saints of 1 Thess.4 is about too, and aligned with.
1 Cor 15:51-52
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
KJV
With Zechariah 14 in the OT, that is about the Jesus' second coming on the 'day of the Lord' as a thief in the night per Paul and Peter. Jesus' feet touch down on the Mount of Olives where He ascended to The Father from per Acts 1. He gathers all His saints per 1 Thess.4, 1 Cor.15, Matt.24, Mark 13 on the way to that spot on earth in Jerusalem.
Thus ALL those Scripture examples align and agree with each other as to the same timing of Jesus' second coming to gather His Church on the final day of this world, that day called the 'day of the Lord' per God's Word.
Because of pre-trib's wrong view on that, that idea has been nicknamed the "any moment" doctrine. It is of course a false idea against God's Word, because Jesus' second coming to gather His Church MUST occur in alignment of the ORDER of events God's Word gives. Jesus does not return prior to the coming of the Antichrist. Nor are we gathered prior to the Antichrist's coming and tribulation.
Christ's Church on earth will go through the tribulation, and will only be gathered by Jesus' at His second coming on the last day of this world, as written.
There is NO written Scripture declaring a pre-trib rapture prior to the tribulation. There is written Scripture declaring the gathering of the saints AFTER the tribulation, which are our Lord Jesus' Own Words (Matt.24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27).
The tribulation is Satan's wrath upon Christ's saints. It is not the time of God's wrath poured upon the wicked on the last day. When pre-trib speaks of the idea from Apostle Paul that we are not appointed to wrath, they misinterpret the "wrath" Paul was teaching about in 1 Thess.5, which is about the "sudden destruction" upon the wicked on the last day, i.e., the "day of the Lord" which comes "as a thief in the night." Paul was teaching that sudden destruction idea from OT Scripture like Isaiah 29. The confusion by pre-trib on that point shows they have not studied God's Word about those "day of the Lord" events.
Since Jesus had not come yet when the OT prophets were given to write prophecy, the Gentile branch was not yet established. Yet Isaiah still has several Scriptures about the Gentiles being part of Christ's inheritance in final. So statements like the OT prophets leave the Church out of the tribulation is a wild statement of supposition that cannot really be backed up, especially since God's Church then were made up of Israel's congregation.
At Revelation 16:15, Jesus is speaking to His Church still on earth on the 6th Vial, giving them a warning to not be deceived...
Rev 16:15-17
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16 And He gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
KJV
By that He revealed His coming to gather the Church still had not yet happened on that 6th Vial timing, which is tribulation timing. So much for pre-trib's false statements that Christ's Church isn't mentioned. Also, in Rev.11 with mention of God's two witnesses appearing in Jerusalem to prophesy against the beast, "two candlesticks" are mentioned along with those two witnesses. And in Rev.1 Jesus told us who the "candlesticks" in Revelation represent:\
Rev 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
KJV
Doesn't it make you wonder if pre-trib folks even read their Bible? These errors in their doctrine I've shown suggests they really are not reading their Bibles, but are just heeding whatever their pre-trib preachers tell them.
The Isaiah 24 Scripture is about the day of The Lord timing, i.e., the last day of this world when the battle of Armageddon happens, and God pours out His cup of wrath upon the wicked. It ends the tribulation.
Isa 24:19-23
19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
That event of the earth shaking, is about the time when all the hills and mountains shake, and the islands moved out of their place. It's the very last day of this world, NOT the tribulation timing.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
Anyone who can read ought to be able to grasp God shaking the earth and transgression upon it falling to not rise again means the tribulation time is over, done with when that happens. So how is it pre-tribbers say this is for DURING the tribulation? Just shows how spiritually drunken they are, their eyes closed.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
That means the END of the ten king's reign of Rev.17 in case one is not aware, which of course means the tribulation has ended with this event of God punishing the host of high ones that are on high.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
This is even telling us what God is going to do with those servants of Satan on the day of Jesus' coming; they'll be cast into the abyss, the pit, with Satan, and wait out Christ's thousand years reign of Rev.20.
23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously.
KJV
That verse is definitely... about the Millennium timing when Jesus reigns with His elect on earth. That is where that Zion is at that time.
I think I've covered enough evidence here from Scripture to show how pre-tribbers are taught falsehoods that are not written in God's Holy Writ. And when they quote all those Scriptures as an attempt to give proof of the pre-trib rapture doctrine, in reality they show how they're not even familiar with what those Scriptures say, or... they intentionally try to mislead brethren that are gullible enough to believe them.
K
Quote "The prosperity movement is part of the pre-trib rapture movement. That's who's historically been preaching it the most, especially on TV."
No,they dont necessarily go hand in hand.I've been AofG all my life and they believe in pre-trib but do not preach the prosperity doctrine. That is independent Pentecostal that preach that,the ones you see on TBN.
Quote "I even remember Oral Roberts in Oklahoma when I was younger go up into his tower and proclaim he would not come down until his ministry received something like 8 million dollars!
Oral Roberts was known for his over the top proclamations,as are most of the tv evangelist set. And he was one of no name brand of Pentecostals.
Quote "Instead of that kind of thing making you angry at me, it ought to make you angry at your pre-trib rapture preachers that do that."
I can open up the Book for myself friend. Im not Catholic and the preacher is no closer to the cross than I am. We're all level at the foot of the cross. I know what I believe,thats not what Im angry about,it is the insults that you are using toward others that upsets me.
K
Quote "I think I've covered enough evidence here from Scripture to show how pre-tribbers are taught falsehoods that are not written in God's Holy Writ. "
No,you've simply ignored every Scripture I posted to make your doctrine correct,just as I said you would.
Quote " And when they quote all those Scriptures as an attempt to give proof of the pre-trib rapture doctrine, in reality they show how they're not even familiar with what those Scriptures say"
And I can say the exact same thing about you. Time will tell which of us is right.
Quote " they intentionally try to mislead brethren that are gullible enough to believe them."
So because you disagree with me you lie about my character,is that it?! I'm not misleading anyone here. People dont need my OR YOUR interpretation of the rapture. People can read the Bible for themselves. I highly doubt people are going to put their faith in forum posters over Jesus Christ and His Word. Just because you scream and insult louder doesn't make you right.
That statement is clearly a falsehood. Only at the last couple of paragraphs did I not have time to address, but I will at the end of this.
I went into detail, showing your misuse of Scripture that contain events that will only occur at the end of this world on the last day, whereas you tried to make it fit the tribulation timing. Specifically, the day of The Lord events are one such example.
There's only 2 possibilities for trying to use Scripture as support for the trib that is instead written for a totally different timing. Either one has not really taken time to actually study those Scriptures and they instead are simply heeding men's doctrines instead, or they intentionally mislead while knowing they are mis-applying them.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as with most on the false pre-trib rapture doctrine, you simply heed the doctrines you're being taught instead of doing your own Bible study. That is the case for the majority on that doctrine. It's the seminary doctors that keep pushing the lie with creating newer fabs to keep the lie going that are the truly guilty ones.
An imminent idea assumed by pre-trib rapture doctrine supporters is not proof of any early Church father holding to a pre-trib rapture idea. Instead trying to insert such ideas pre-trib uses with the word 'immiment' into their early writings is revisionist scholarship, and not true scholarship.
Well, if we're going to quote scholars...
BOILING IT DOWN
by Dave MacPherson
(This book excerpt is found on pages 227-231 in my book The Rapture Plot, my most comprehensive work on pretrib rapturism's earliest development in the early 1800's. It's my summary of the book's highlights and takes the unusual form of an imaginary phone call from a dispensationalist, with a dash of humor thrown in. Incidentally, all of my book royalties have always gone not to me but to our nonprofit research group, a group that has never paid salary to myself or anyone else! You can obtain The Rapture Plot through Armageddon Books on the Internet or by calling 800-967-7345.)
The dispensationalist who non-literally phoned me in the chapter on Darby's early works phoned me again. He wanted me to boil down, in my "own words," the earliest pretrib development. Here's what was said:
Dispensationalist:Dave, can you boil down, in your own words, the earliest pretrib development?
Dave: I'll be glad to.
Dispensationalist:My teachers have long said that the most important underlying "truth" which led to pretrib was the church/Israel "dichotomy," which means "separation."
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: I've gone through Darby's works up to and through 1830 and he doesn't have any dichotomy between the church and the Jews. In 1827 he had his "heavenly" theme, echoing Irving in 1825 and Lacunza in 1812, but no dichotomy. In 1828 he talked about "unity" the way Irving and Lacunza did, but again no dichotomy. In 1829 he expected only the Revelation 19 coming, following intermediate events, and saw no dichotomy during either the tribulation or a following millennium----all omitted by Huebner. Even if he'd had a millennial dichotomy, it wouldn't have been a support for pretrib. In December of 1830 he again expected only the Revelation 19 coming, which Huebner does admit. But Huebner again overlooks that this coming followed intermediate events and that Darby still didn't have a church/Israel dichotomy during the tribulation or anything else. It seems that Huebner, wishing to credit Darby, had read church/Israel dichotomy into church/Israel distinction----a distinction that the church had always seen prior to 1830.
Dave:That's right.
Dispensationalist: And when I went through your chapter on Darby's reminiscences, I couldn't find him expressing a dichotomy even in his later, exaggerated memories. Memories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 mention Isaiah 32. But my teachers, including Walvoord, say that Isaiah 32 isn't on "church" ground and that a pretrib rapture isn't found anywhere in the Old Testament. How can Isaiah 32 portray such a dichotomy if the "church" half of the dichotomy is missing? And Memories 2 and 7 say nothing about the Jews. Since his dichotomy was non-existent through December 1830----he saw both the church and Israel together on earth until the Revelation 19 coming----it appears that the only separation in Darby's early progress was the separation between Darby and the dichotomy!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: Besides, the "truths" that reportedly evolved into pretrib were all held by Irving in 1825 in his preliminary discourse, or preface, to Lacunza and published in 1827. Only after Darby's "heavenly" (1827) and "unity" (1828)----which weren't original----do we see him in 1829 with some detailed development. Even if we give Irving's "truths" an 1827 date, 1827 is before 1829. And well-read Darby, fluent in several modern languages as well as ancient Biblical languages, knew about Irving's "truths." In his 1829 work, Darby expressed his familiarity with the ideas "throughout this preface" to Lacunza, quoted page 55 in it, summarized pages 55-65, and came close to Irving's "truths." For example, on page 53 Irving used "expectation" while holding to intermediate events and on page 67 he used the phrase "look daily for the coming"----even though Irving then expected only the Revelation 19 coming. Obviously Darby was influenced by Irving and by other earlier writers!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: But not even the Irvingites derived pretrib from these "truths" which were theirs and not Darby's. Their first public pretrib teaching in September 1830----while Darby still defended posttrib three months later----was based on "Philadelphia" raptured and "Laodicea" left on earth, and not on the dichotomy or other "truths" that my teachers have credited Darby with. Only after pretrib was established did the Irvingites use the dichotomy for further support. Their first public pretrib was only a church/church dichotomy between "Philadelphia" and "Laodicea." Not until a year later did The Morning Watch see a tribulation primarily for "the Jews" and not "Laodicea"----a true church/Israel dichotomy explicitly separating church members and Jews and emphasizing the latter even though God wasn't supposed to be dealing again with the Jews until the vicinity of the final advent which was then about 36 years in the future! The Irvingites sure seemed to be unnecessarily and arbitrarily anti-Jewish, right?
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist:Even Darby's first "understanding" in 1830, based on his 1850 memory, and his first "hint" of pretrib in 1834, based on his words at the time, weren't based on the church/Israel dichotomy. They were drawn from what seemed to be an order of events in the Thessalonian letters----"church" ground. Whereas Isaiah 32 didn't have the first half of the dichotomy, the Thessalonian epistles didn't clearly have the second half. So the underlying "truths" weren't used by either the Irvingites or Darby to either initially understand or initially teach pretrib. And even Darby used the dichotomy only after pretrib's arrival----as additional support.
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist:And it seems that Darby was behind others in everything. He was defending posttrib three months after the Irvingites were clearly pretrib. He was behind others on even the so-called underlying "truths." His 1830 statement about the "Gentile parenthesis" was almost a duplicate of what William Davis of South Carolina wrote in 1811. And Lacunza (1812) and The Morning Watch (1829) also used "parenthesis." When Darby finally had clear pretrib teaching in 1839, his basis was the Revelation 12 "man child" symbol with support soon coming from I Corinthians 12's mystical "body"----but Irving's pretrib basis in 1831 was the same symbol with the same support!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: If Darby really wasn't a year-day late and a British pound short, why have some individuals taken great pains to cover up pretrib in the Irvingites? Why did Kelly, with Darby's approval, fashion footnotes from Darby's much later writings and add them to Darby's early writings in order to "mature" him? And why, for the same purpose, did Kelly add bracketed insertions within Darby's text and even reveal in a footnote to Darby's 1830 work that he wasn't against "suppressing" and "changing" Darby's own words? Since Darby lived many more years after the revisionism of his own words had begun----revisionism less subtle than Darby had intended----why didn't Darby object? Did he think that no one would ever notice? And why has Kelly's massive and desperate revisionism between 1889 and 1903 been unobserved until now? If the most important thing is what the Bible teaches, Kelly should have stuck to Bible teaching and not engineered his clever distortions of the Irvingites and even fellow Brethren member Tregelles. Maybe you should call this whole thing "Rapturegate" or refer to the Brethren "grinch" who stole the Irvingite "Christmas"!
Maybe you should call this whole thing "Rapturegate" or refer to the Brethren "grinch" who stole the Irvingite "Christmas"!
Dave:That's right.
Dispensationalist: Something else. My teachers admit that the most crucial underlying "truth" that supposedly led to pretrib was the church/Israel "dichotomy" which means "separation." And when will this separation take place? At the start of a future tribulation. By what means? The pretrib rapture. If the pretrib rapture itself is the separation between the church and the ones that my teachers call "Israel"----and it is----then the pretrib rapture itself is this "dichotomy"! It's like saying that "The pretrib rapture was the main truth that led to the pretrib rapture" or "The pretrib rapture sprang from itself"!
I know I've taken too much of your time. But I'm grateful for all of the enlightenment you've just given me during this phone call. Many thanks. Good-bye.
Well, if we're going to quote scholars...
BOILING IT DOWN
by Dave MacPherson
(This book excerpt is found on pages 227-231 in my book The Rapture Plot, my most comprehensive work on pretrib rapturism's earliest development in the early 1800's. It's my summary of the book's highlights and takes the unusual form of an imaginary phone call from a dispensationalist, with a dash of humor thrown in. Incidentally, all of my book royalties have always gone not to me but to our nonprofit research group, a group that has never paid salary to myself or anyone else! You can obtain The Rapture Plot through Armageddon Books on the Internet or by calling 800-967-7345.)
The dispensationalist who non-literally phoned me in the chapter on Darby's early works phoned me again. He wanted me to boil down, in my "own words," the earliest pretrib development. Here's what was said:
Dispensationalist:Dave, can you boil down, in your own words, the earliest pretrib development?
Dave: I'll be glad to.
Dispensationalist:My teachers have long said that the most important underlying "truth" which led to pretrib was the church/Israel "dichotomy," which means "separation."
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: I've gone through Darby's works up to and through 1830 and he doesn't have any dichotomy between the church and the Jews. In 1827 he had his "heavenly" theme, echoing Irving in 1825 and Lacunza in 1812, but no dichotomy. In 1828 he talked about "unity" the way Irving and Lacunza did, but again no dichotomy. In 1829 he expected only the Revelation 19 coming, following intermediate events, and saw no dichotomy during either the tribulation or a following millennium----all omitted by Huebner. Even if he'd had a millennial dichotomy, it wouldn't have been a support for pretrib. In December of 1830 he again expected only the Revelation 19 coming, which Huebner does admit. But Huebner again overlooks that this coming followed intermediate events and that Darby still didn't have a church/Israel dichotomy during the tribulation or anything else. It seems that Huebner, wishing to credit Darby, had read church/Israel dichotomy into church/Israel distinction----a distinction that the church had always seen prior to 1830.
Dave:That's right.
Dispensationalist: And when I went through your chapter on Darby's reminiscences, I couldn't find him expressing a dichotomy even in his later, exaggerated memories. Memories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 mention Isaiah 32. But my teachers, including Walvoord, say that Isaiah 32 isn't on "church" ground and that a pretrib rapture isn't found anywhere in the Old Testament. How can Isaiah 32 portray such a dichotomy if the "church" half of the dichotomy is missing? And Memories 2 and 7 say nothing about the Jews. Since his dichotomy was non-existent through December 1830----he saw both the church and Israel together on earth until the Revelation 19 coming----it appears that the only separation in Darby's early progress was the separation between Darby and the dichotomy!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: Besides, the "truths" that reportedly evolved into pretrib were all held by Irving in 1825 in his preliminary discourse, or preface, to Lacunza and published in 1827. Only after Darby's "heavenly" (1827) and "unity" (1828)----which weren't original----do we see him in 1829 with some detailed development. Even if we give Irving's "truths" an 1827 date, 1827 is before 1829. And well-read Darby, fluent in several modern languages as well as ancient Biblical languages, knew about Irving's "truths." In his 1829 work, Darby expressed his familiarity with the ideas "throughout this preface" to Lacunza, quoted page 55 in it, summarized pages 55-65, and came close to Irving's "truths." For example, on page 53 Irving used "expectation" while holding to intermediate events and on page 67 he used the phrase "look daily for the coming"----even though Irving then expected only the Revelation 19 coming. Obviously Darby was influenced by Irving and by other earlier writers!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: But not even the Irvingites derived pretrib from these "truths" which were theirs and not Darby's. Their first public pretrib teaching in September 1830----while Darby still defended posttrib three months later----was based on "Philadelphia" raptured and "Laodicea" left on earth, and not on the dichotomy or other "truths" that my teachers have credited Darby with. Only after pretrib was established did the Irvingites use the dichotomy for further support. Their first public pretrib was only a church/church dichotomy between "Philadelphia" and "Laodicea." Not until a year later did The Morning Watch see a tribulation primarily for "the Jews" and not "Laodicea"----a true church/Israel dichotomy explicitly separating church members and Jews and emphasizing the latter even though God wasn't supposed to be dealing again with the Jews until the vicinity of the final advent which was then about 36 years in the future! The Irvingites sure seemed to be unnecessarily and arbitrarily anti-Jewish, right?
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist:Even Darby's first "understanding" in 1830, based on his 1850 memory, and his first "hint" of pretrib in 1834, based on his words at the time, weren't based on the church/Israel dichotomy. They were drawn from what seemed to be an order of events in the Thessalonian letters----"church" ground. Whereas Isaiah 32 didn't have the first half of the dichotomy, the Thessalonian epistles didn't clearly have the second half. So the underlying "truths" weren't used by either the Irvingites or Darby to either initially understand or initially teach pretrib. And even Darby used the dichotomy only after pretrib's arrival----as additional support.
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist:And it seems that Darby was behind others in everything. He was defending posttrib three months after the Irvingites were clearly pretrib. He was behind others on even the so-called underlying "truths." His 1830 statement about the "Gentile parenthesis" was almost a duplicate of what William Davis of South Carolina wrote in 1811. And Lacunza (1812) and The Morning Watch (1829) also used "parenthesis." When Darby finally had clear pretrib teaching in 1839, his basis was the Revelation 12 "man child" symbol with support soon coming from I Corinthians 12's mystical "body"----but Irving's pretrib basis in 1831 was the same symbol with the same support!
Dave: That's right.
Dispensationalist: If Darby really wasn't a year-day late and a British pound short, why have some individuals taken great pains to cover up pretrib in the Irvingites? Why did Kelly, with Darby's approval, fashion footnotes from Darby's much later writings and add them to Darby's early writings in order to "mature" him? And why, for the same purpose, did Kelly add bracketed insertions within Darby's text and even reveal in a footnote to Darby's 1830 work that he wasn't against "suppressing" and "changing" Darby's own words? Since Darby lived many more years after the revisionism of his own words had begun----revisionism less subtle than Darby had intended----why didn't Darby object? Did he think that no one would ever notice? And why has Kelly's massive and desperate revisionism between 1889 and 1903 been unobserved until now? If the most important thing is what the Bible teaches, Kelly should have stuck to Bible teaching and not engineered his clever distortions of the Irvingites and even fellow Brethren member Tregelles. Maybe you should call this whole thing "Rapturegate" or refer to the Brethren "grinch" who stole the Irvingite "Christmas"!
Maybe you should call this whole thing "Rapturegate" or refer to the Brethren "grinch" who stole the Irvingite "Christmas"!
Dave:That's right.
Dispensationalist: Something else. My teachers admit that the most crucial underlying "truth" that supposedly led to pretrib was the church/Israel "dichotomy" which means "separation." And when will this separation take place? At the start of a future tribulation. By what means? The pretrib rapture. If the pretrib rapture itself is the separation between the church and the ones that my teachers call "Israel"----and it is----then the pretrib rapture itself is this "dichotomy"! It's like saying that "The pretrib rapture was the main truth that led to the pretrib rapture" or "The pretrib rapture sprang from itself"!
I know I've taken too much of your time. But I'm grateful for all of the enlightenment you've just given me during this phone call. Many thanks. Good-bye.
P
Notice he dodges rev 14.
Jesus gathers the ripe fruit from a cloud,and never touches earth.
If that were not bad enough,his gathering is PRIOR TO postrib s erroneous first resurrection they claim is AFTER Jesus reaping the earth.
1thes 4 has the dead raised FIRST,THEN THOSE THAT ARE CHRIST'S AND ALIVE MEET THEM IN THE AIR.
Are postrib s that delusional that they think 1 thes 4 is a misprint?
Jesus gathers the ripe fruit from a cloud,and never touches earth.
If that were not bad enough,his gathering is PRIOR TO postrib s erroneous first resurrection they claim is AFTER Jesus reaping the earth.
1thes 4 has the dead raised FIRST,THEN THOSE THAT ARE CHRIST'S AND ALIVE MEET THEM IN THE AIR.
Are postrib s that delusional that they think 1 thes 4 is a misprint?
Ditto my friend. My interpretation is not private, I share it will all 
. Actually, most of what I say isn't interpretation unless it deals with the symbols. In this case I am simply citing, then repeating scripture word for word. Perhaps God the Father and Son return together? We aren't told. But what is clear is the Father is bringing the Saints. Christ gathers the ELECT who are here on earth, from one end of heaven to the other, the second heaven, not the third heaven. These are different tasks if you ask me.
Love ya though Popeye and consider you a friend even through we disagree on most of future prophesy. The funny thing is a lot of what I am saying will happen is already starting to happen. You are still waiting for the Catholic Church to rise up and start beheading people.
. Actually, most of what I say isn't interpretation unless it deals with the symbols. In this case I am simply citing, then repeating scripture word for word. Perhaps God the Father and Son return together? We aren't told. But what is clear is the Father is bringing the Saints. Christ gathers the ELECT who are here on earth, from one end of heaven to the other, the second heaven, not the third heaven. These are different tasks if you ask me. Love ya though Popeye and consider you a friend even through we disagree on most of future prophesy. The funny thing is a lot of what I am saying will happen is already starting to happen. You are still waiting for the Catholic Church to rise up and start beheading people.
Last edited:
What's incorrect?
God doesn't bring all the Saints? Sure sounds correct to me. Those who sleep in Jesus are Saints, right?
1 Thes 4: ...even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
Zec 5:14: ...Thus the Lord my God will come, And all the saints with You.
Joel Chapter 2 discusses in great detail the beginning of the Day of the Lord. God is leading His army (either of angels or saints or both) against the Northern Islamic army who attacked and is occupying Israel. The number as given in Rev 9 is 200 million, all in glorified bodies which cannot be killed. After the Islamic North Army is defeated, God remains among the people in Israel. He will not likely be visible as He never is, but He will be here.
I will cut and paste key portions of the Chapter which show this in chronological order as given but feel fee to go read the whole thing.
Joel 2 (excerpted):
1. For the day of the Lord is coming, For it is at hand...
2. A people come, great and strong, The like of whom has never been...
3. Surely nothing shall escape them. Their appearance is like the appearance of horses...
4. Though they lunge between the weapons, They are not cut down...
5. The earth quakes before them, The heavens tremble; The sun and moon grow dark, And the stars diminish their brightness.
(doesn't the above match perfectly with the events of Mat 24 which happen just before the Son of Man returns?)
6. The Lord gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great. For strong is the One who executes His word..
7. Then the Lord will be zealous for His land, And pity His people.
8. I will remove far from you the northern army, And will drive him away...
9. Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the Lord your God And there is no other.
10. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
Sure sounds to me like God the Father is coming back too, and staying!! Not U-Turning it back to heaven.
Joel 3: “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain.
Oh how I want to be back in Israel to witness this when it happens.
God doesn't bring all the Saints? Sure sounds correct to me. Those who sleep in Jesus are Saints, right?
1 Thes 4: ...even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
Zec 5:14: ...Thus the Lord my God will come, And all the saints with You.
Joel Chapter 2 discusses in great detail the beginning of the Day of the Lord. God is leading His army (either of angels or saints or both) against the Northern Islamic army who attacked and is occupying Israel. The number as given in Rev 9 is 200 million, all in glorified bodies which cannot be killed. After the Islamic North Army is defeated, God remains among the people in Israel. He will not likely be visible as He never is, but He will be here.
I will cut and paste key portions of the Chapter which show this in chronological order as given but feel fee to go read the whole thing.
Joel 2 (excerpted):
1. For the day of the Lord is coming, For it is at hand...
2. A people come, great and strong, The like of whom has never been...
3. Surely nothing shall escape them. Their appearance is like the appearance of horses...
4. Though they lunge between the weapons, They are not cut down...
5. The earth quakes before them, The heavens tremble; The sun and moon grow dark, And the stars diminish their brightness.
(doesn't the above match perfectly with the events of Mat 24 which happen just before the Son of Man returns?)
6. The Lord gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great. For strong is the One who executes His word..
7. Then the Lord will be zealous for His land, And pity His people.
8. I will remove far from you the northern army, And will drive him away...
9. Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the Lord your God And there is no other.
10. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
Sure sounds to me like God the Father is coming back too, and staying!! Not U-Turning it back to heaven.
Joel 3: “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain.
Oh how I want to be back in Israel to witness this when it happens.
Last edited:
P
Ditto my friend. My interpretation is not private, I share it will all . Actually, most of what I say isn't interpretation unless it deals with the symbols. In this case I am simply citing, then repeating scripture word for word. Perhaps God the Father and Son return together? We aren't told. But what is clear is the Father is bringing the Saints. Christ gathers the ELECT who are here on earth, from one end of heaven to the other, the second heaven, not the third heaven. These are different tasks if you ask me.
Love ya though Popeye and consider you a friend even through we disagree on most of future prophesy. The funny thing is a lot of what I am saying will happen is already starting to happen. You are still waiting for the Catholic Church to rise up and start beheading people.
. Actually, most of what I say isn't interpretation unless it deals with the symbols. In this case I am simply citing, then repeating scripture word for word. Perhaps God the Father and Son return together? We aren't told. But what is clear is the Father is bringing the Saints. Christ gathers the ELECT who are here on earth, from one end of heaven to the other, the second heaven, not the third heaven. These are different tasks if you ask me. Love ya though Popeye and consider you a friend even through we disagree on most of future prophesy. The funny thing is a lot of what I am saying will happen is already starting to happen. You are still waiting for the Catholic Church to rise up and start beheading people.
we seem to have an unspoken respect for each other even though we "dance " a little rough at times. LOL