Great GRACE {MYSTERY} Departure @ the 2nd coming {prophecy}?
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- 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.
Good post.
I have difficulty with your translation of a third temple.
Perhaps the man of lawlessness is sitting in the church.
A third temple seems very unlikely given that Israel would need to be, under the law of Moses.
A question for you by the way.
Who is the man of lawlessness revealed to Christians or is he revealed to the world?
I have difficulty with your translation of a third temple.
Perhaps the man of lawlessness is sitting in the church.
A third temple seems very unlikely given that Israel would need to be, under the law of Moses.
A question for you by the way.
Who is the man of lawlessness revealed to Christians or is he revealed to the world?
It says "before the flood, one taken,one left" then , "watch and be ready"
Nothing of that is mid or postrib.
100% pretrib gathering.
To seal it, Jesus uses Lot as a verification of a pretrib gathering.
The third witness is the virgin parable, spoken in the same breath as mat 24 "one taken/left."
Jesus uses the exact same variable as 50% taken, the other half left behind in mat 24 and mat 25.
Hard to make that fit another doctrine.
But ignoring verses is what makes diverse doctrines thrive.
Nothing of that is mid or postrib.
100% pretrib gathering.
To seal it, Jesus uses Lot as a verification of a pretrib gathering.
The third witness is the virgin parable, spoken in the same breath as mat 24 "one taken/left."
Jesus uses the exact same variable as 50% taken, the other half left behind in mat 24 and mat 25.
Hard to make that fit another doctrine.
But ignoring verses is what makes diverse doctrines thrive.
Not properly understanding verses makes diverse doctrines even more diverse and thrive even much more... 
What is 'taken' and 'left'?
It may be just as easily said that:
~ In the flood, those who were saved were 'taken' into the ark while those who died were 'left' without.
~ Lot was 'taken' outside of the city while the rest were 'left' in the city to be destroyed.
~ Five of the virgins were 'taken' into the marriage while five were left without.
The "verifications" you speak of are in your mind and not scripture.
The 'rapture' - as an 'event' - is perfectly 'valid' in terms of it "fitting into the narrative" - in 'pre-trib', 'mid-trib', and 'post-trib'.
Why? Because, the 'narrative' of each - not only allows for - but, explicitly indicates - that 'some are taken' while 'some are left'.
There is a 'before' and an 'after' in each of these scenarios. The timing of the rapture is not indicated in the verses that describe it.
It is in the larger scope of scripture - whereby, verses are taken together and compared - where the 'when' of the rapture is determined.
Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The word 'took' in verse 39 cannot be properly tied to the word 'taken' in verses 40-41 as having the same meaning. Why? Because, they do not have the same meaning. It is like apples and oranges - each is within its own context.
In the 'took' context - "took them all away" - it is referring to being "removed" from their normal daily life expectation - they were destroyed - all of them collectively.
In the 'taken' context - "the one shall be taken, and the other left" - it is referring to being "separated" from the-other-of-two (in each case).
The meaning of each word is defined within its own context. And, there are two different contexts.
The "flood days" description is a form of [an] 'aside' - which "shifts the focus" temporarily.
After the description is given for reference, the focus returns to the 'coming of the Son'.
Then a description of the event-based activity of verses 40-41 is given after that.
The two contexts cannot be mixed based on individual words used in their grammatical construction.
This is the mistake that people often make. They try to tie together same-or-similar individual words in different places/verses in scripture.
This is error. Just because a same-or-similar word is used in two places in scripture does not automatically make them have the same exact meaning.
Even if two same words defined as the same Strongs word exist - context may alter the "fine points" of what the word means in that particular context.
Go look up the Strongs words for 'took' and 'taken' ( and 'left' also) in these verses - and, the words from which those words were derived - you may discover something very interesting that you really did not expect...
Anyone who finds themselves comparing verses/passages of scripture based strictly on the [English] words themselves - stop doing that - you are sliding into error when you do that - you must look at the meaning of words within the context where they are found - before you ever reach the point of 'comparing scripture with scripture'.
Oh sure - you may get away with it once-or-twice-or-here-or-there (because something just happens to be the same and works out that way); however, as a practice for study, it is a dangerous approach.
What is 'taken' and 'left'?
It may be just as easily said that:
~ In the flood, those who were saved were 'taken' into the ark while those who died were 'left' without.
~ Lot was 'taken' outside of the city while the rest were 'left' in the city to be destroyed.
~ Five of the virgins were 'taken' into the marriage while five were left without.
The "verifications" you speak of are in your mind and not scripture.
The 'rapture' - as an 'event' - is perfectly 'valid' in terms of it "fitting into the narrative" - in 'pre-trib', 'mid-trib', and 'post-trib'.
Why? Because, the 'narrative' of each - not only allows for - but, explicitly indicates - that 'some are taken' while 'some are left'.
There is a 'before' and an 'after' in each of these scenarios. The timing of the rapture is not indicated in the verses that describe it.
It is in the larger scope of scripture - whereby, verses are taken together and compared - where the 'when' of the rapture is determined.
Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The word 'took' in verse 39 cannot be properly tied to the word 'taken' in verses 40-41 as having the same meaning. Why? Because, they do not have the same meaning. It is like apples and oranges - each is within its own context.
In the 'took' context - "took them all away" - it is referring to being "removed" from their normal daily life expectation - they were destroyed - all of them collectively.
In the 'taken' context - "the one shall be taken, and the other left" - it is referring to being "separated" from the-other-of-two (in each case).
The meaning of each word is defined within its own context. And, there are two different contexts.
The "flood days" description is a form of [an] 'aside' - which "shifts the focus" temporarily.
After the description is given for reference, the focus returns to the 'coming of the Son'.
Then a description of the event-based activity of verses 40-41 is given after that.
The two contexts cannot be mixed based on individual words used in their grammatical construction.
This is the mistake that people often make. They try to tie together same-or-similar individual words in different places/verses in scripture.
This is error. Just because a same-or-similar word is used in two places in scripture does not automatically make them have the same exact meaning.
Even if two same words defined as the same Strongs word exist - context may alter the "fine points" of what the word means in that particular context.
Go look up the Strongs words for 'took' and 'taken' ( and 'left' also) in these verses - and, the words from which those words were derived - you may discover something very interesting that you really did not expect...
Anyone who finds themselves comparing verses/passages of scripture based strictly on the [English] words themselves - stop doing that - you are sliding into error when you do that - you must look at the meaning of words within the context where they are found - before you ever reach the point of 'comparing scripture with scripture'.
Oh sure - you may get away with it once-or-twice-or-here-or-there (because something just happens to be the same and works out that way); however, as a practice for study, it is a dangerous approach.
Not properly understanding verses makes diverse doctrines even more diverse and thrive even much more...
What is 'taken' and 'left'?
It may be just as easily said that:
~ In the flood, those who were saved were 'taken' into the ark while those who died were 'left' without.
~ Lot was 'taken' outside of the city while the rest were 'left' in the city to be destroyed.
~ Five of the virgins were 'taken' into the marriage while five were left without.
The "verifications" you speak of are in your mind and not scripture.
The 'rapture' - as an 'event' - is perfectly 'valid' in terms of it "fitting into the narrative" - in 'pre-trib', 'mid-trib', and 'post-trib'.
Why? Because, the 'narrative' of each - not only allows for - but, explicitly indicates - that 'some are taken' while 'some are left'.
There is a 'before' and an 'after' in each of these scenarios. The timing of the rapture is not indicated in the verses that describe it.
It is in the larger scope of scripture - whereby, verses are taken together and compared - where the 'when' of the rapture is determined.
Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The word 'took' in verse 39 cannot be properly tied to the word 'taken' in verses 40-41 as having the same meaning. Why? Because, they do not have the same meaning. It is like apples and oranges - each is within its own context.
In the 'took' context - "took them all away" - it is referring to being "removed" from their normal daily life expectation - they were destroyed - all of them collectively.
In the 'taken' context - "the one shall be taken, and the other left" - it is referring to being "separated" from the-other-of-two (in each case).
The meaning of each word is defined within its own context. And, there are two different contexts.
The "flood days" description is a form of [an] 'aside' - which "shifts the focus" temporarily.
After the description is given for reference, the focus returns to the 'coming of the Son'.
Then a description of the event-based activity of verses 40-41 is given after that.
The two contexts cannot be mixed based on individual words used in their grammatical construction.
This is the mistake that people often make. They try to tie together same-or-similar individual words in different places/verses in scripture.
This is error. Just because a same-or-similar word is used in two places in scripture does not automatically make them have the same exact meaning.
Even if two same words defined as the same Strongs word exist - context may alter the "fine points" of what the word means in that particular context.
Go look up the Strongs words for 'took' and 'taken' ( and 'left' also) in these verses - and, the words from which those words were derived - you may discover something very interesting that you really did not expect...
Anyone who finds themselves comparing verses/passages of scripture based strictly on the [English] words themselves - stop doing that - you are sliding into error when you do that - you must look at the meaning of words within the context where they are found - before you ever reach the point of 'comparing scripture with scripture'.
Oh sure - you may get away with it once-or-twice-or-here-or-there (because something just happens to be the same and works out that way); however, as a practice for study, it is a dangerous approach.
What is 'taken' and 'left'?
It may be just as easily said that:
~ In the flood, those who were saved were 'taken' into the ark while those who died were 'left' without.
~ Lot was 'taken' outside of the city while the rest were 'left' in the city to be destroyed.
~ Five of the virgins were 'taken' into the marriage while five were left without.
The "verifications" you speak of are in your mind and not scripture.
The 'rapture' - as an 'event' - is perfectly 'valid' in terms of it "fitting into the narrative" - in 'pre-trib', 'mid-trib', and 'post-trib'.
Why? Because, the 'narrative' of each - not only allows for - but, explicitly indicates - that 'some are taken' while 'some are left'.
There is a 'before' and an 'after' in each of these scenarios. The timing of the rapture is not indicated in the verses that describe it.
It is in the larger scope of scripture - whereby, verses are taken together and compared - where the 'when' of the rapture is determined.
Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The word 'took' in verse 39 cannot be properly tied to the word 'taken' in verses 40-41 as having the same meaning. Why? Because, they do not have the same meaning. It is like apples and oranges - each is within its own context.
In the 'took' context - "took them all away" - it is referring to being "removed" from their normal daily life expectation - they were destroyed - all of them collectively.
In the 'taken' context - "the one shall be taken, and the other left" - it is referring to being "separated" from the-other-of-two (in each case).
The meaning of each word is defined within its own context. And, there are two different contexts.
The "flood days" description is a form of [an] 'aside' - which "shifts the focus" temporarily.
After the description is given for reference, the focus returns to the 'coming of the Son'.
Then a description of the event-based activity of verses 40-41 is given after that.
The two contexts cannot be mixed based on individual words used in their grammatical construction.
This is the mistake that people often make. They try to tie together same-or-similar individual words in different places/verses in scripture.
This is error. Just because a same-or-similar word is used in two places in scripture does not automatically make them have the same exact meaning.
Even if two same words defined as the same Strongs word exist - context may alter the "fine points" of what the word means in that particular context.
Go look up the Strongs words for 'took' and 'taken' ( and 'left' also) in these verses - and, the words from which those words were derived - you may discover something very interesting that you really did not expect...
Anyone who finds themselves comparing verses/passages of scripture based strictly on the [English] words themselves - stop doing that - you are sliding into error when you do that - you must look at the meaning of words within the context where they are found - before you ever reach the point of 'comparing scripture with scripture'.
Oh sure - you may get away with it once-or-twice-or-here-or-there (because something just happens to be the same and works out that way); however, as a practice for study, it is a dangerous approach.
You did NOT ADDRESS WHO WAS TAKEN.
Instead you gave a discource of what is in your mind.
There is only 2 possibilities of the ones taken/ left.
Either the righteous are taken, or the wicked.
But you can't go there can you?
Your post is a dodge.
That tells us you are incorrect right there.
But beyond that, under your doctrine, you incorrectly ignore " before the flood one taken, one left behind" and " normal life, commerce , and everyday life at the one taken, one left behind."
Then in your workbook, they never bring in the FACT that Jesus tell THOSE TAKEN to "watch and be ready"
Hmmmm....no wonder you COMPLETLY IGNORE what Jesus said .
...and said it vividly.
Every word of those verses in Matthew testify against the spin you are attempting
Lol
Pretrib rapture.
Read this real slowly.:
Mark 13
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
Once you see these words of Jesus COMBINED WITH THE RAPTURE VERSES,
You will see the IMPOSSIBILITY of all positions but the pretrib rapture.
You just PROVED the pretrib rapture as correct.
Btw:
Not properly understanding verses makes diverse doctrines even more diverse and thrive even much more...
Pretrib rapture.
Read this real slowly.:
Mark 13
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
Once you see these words of Jesus COMBINED WITH THE RAPTURE VERSES,
You will see the IMPOSSIBILITY of all positions but the pretrib rapture.
You just PROVED the pretrib rapture as correct.
Btw:
Not properly understanding verses makes diverse doctrines even more diverse and thrive even much more...
@Psalm1 - study the verses/passages listed in this chart:
http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Second_Coming.html
Pay very close attention to all of the 'details' of each verse/passage.
Perhaps, you may eventually see that they are all referring to the same singular 'event' - which is the Second Coming of Christ.
http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Second_Coming.html
Pay very close attention to all of the 'details' of each verse/passage.
Perhaps, you may eventually see that they are all referring to the same singular 'event' - which is the Second Coming of Christ.