Less well-known Rapture verses. The case for the Rapture is compelling.
- Thread starter cv5
- 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.
Absolutely correct. What people fail to understand is that when Jesus is talking about the days of Noah, the analogy He is drawing is with the 70th week of Daniel not the SC particularly.
Since there are no signs particularly leading up to the Rapture, and the 70th week of Daniel is consequential to the occurrence of the rapture (and occurs immediately thereafter), THEREFORE all of the exhortations and warnings about coming as a thief, coming at any moment, the parallels to a husband coming to snatch his bride (midnight call) apply in a very real sense to the SC.
The way I see it the Rapture & the SC are basically a total package. They are inextricably bound together and this explains many of the supposedly confusing statements of Jesus.
The pre-trib rapture is the ingredient that bakes the entire prophetical cake. You simply can't do without it. Every time I hear theories of prophecy that excludes the rapture, it is always full of holes. Always.
To all of those who desperately want to go through the tribulation.....have at it. I'm not going no way. Jesus has provided for us in this regard and believe me I am seizing onto it.
Since there are no signs particularly leading up to the Rapture, and the 70th week of Daniel is consequential to the occurrence of the rapture (and occurs immediately thereafter), THEREFORE all of the exhortations and warnings about coming as a thief, coming at any moment, the parallels to a husband coming to snatch his bride (midnight call) apply in a very real sense to the SC.
The way I see it the Rapture & the SC are basically a total package. They are inextricably bound together and this explains many of the supposedly confusing statements of Jesus.
The pre-trib rapture is the ingredient that bakes the entire prophetical cake. You simply can't do without it. Every time I hear theories of prophecy that excludes the rapture, it is always full of holes. Always.
To all of those who desperately want to go through the tribulation.....have at it. I'm not going no way. Jesus has provided for us in this regard and believe me I am seizing onto it.
You are making a case that the flood was NOT judgement?
Yes the DAY OF JUDGMENT is DIFFERENT than to OTHER JUDGMENTS. IT is called The GWT judgement.
But you are not versed very well in that word you are schooling others on.
Example:
Numbers 33:4
who were burying all their firstborn, whom the Lord had struck down among them; for the Lord had brought judgment on their gods.
See that? God judged the egyptians like he did with other wicked in the flood.
Are you aware of how off your asertion is ?
Just do a 5 minute study on ”judgment" in the Ot.
Not " the day of judgement" or " the day of wrath"
You keep talking around the rapture verses.
You shy from that truth.
I have challenged you in that arena.
Even with that challenge you still fail to debate the issue.
I sense it is because there is no way you can possibly make the second coming on white horses into the rapture.
Debate specifics I am putting on the table.
I am laying them down for you to debate.
You have refused over and over.
""I don't reply to you much because I don't really want to argue with you""
Ok just debate the rapture verses. Don't argue...just debate them.
Make a specific case.
""For one, you have misread what the Bible says and resist whenever anyone says otherwise. But I'll try again.""
Show me specifically.
Show me where the rapture verses build on your notion that the second coming on white horses is the rapture.
They actually oppose that notion. And is WHY you deflect.
Yes the DAY OF JUDGMENT is DIFFERENT than to OTHER JUDGMENTS. IT is called The GWT judgement.
But you are not versed very well in that word you are schooling others on.
Example:
Numbers 33:4
who were burying all their firstborn, whom the Lord had struck down among them; for the Lord had brought judgment on their gods.
See that? God judged the egyptians like he did with other wicked in the flood.
Are you aware of how off your asertion is ?
Just do a 5 minute study on ”judgment" in the Ot.
Not " the day of judgement" or " the day of wrath"
You keep talking around the rapture verses.
You shy from that truth.
I have challenged you in that arena.
Even with that challenge you still fail to debate the issue.
I sense it is because there is no way you can possibly make the second coming on white horses into the rapture.
Debate specifics I am putting on the table.
I am laying them down for you to debate.
You have refused over and over.
""I don't reply to you much because I don't really want to argue with you""
Ok just debate the rapture verses. Don't argue...just debate them.
Make a specific case.
""For one, you have misread what the Bible says and resist whenever anyone says otherwise. But I'll try again.""
Show me specifically.
Show me where the rapture verses build on your notion that the second coming on white horses is the rapture.
They actually oppose that notion. And is WHY you deflect.
In clear bible teaching, show me how rev 14 is the exact same thing as the second coming on billions of horses that blackens the sky.
Rev 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
Or acts 1
Or mat 25
Rev 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
Or acts 1
Or mat 25
When we were talking about this yesterday, it made me remember and think about his "name meaning" ('dedication' or 'initiation')... and as I was thinking about the word 'dedicate' and a particular scripture reference, I happened to come across the following quote (below) by Augustine that was along the lines of what was going through my head at that time (not that I would endorse Augustine's Amillennial-type stuff, or its faulty chronology [let alone his typical method of interpretation, etc], but just that I thought it was interesting that my thoughts were trying to formulate something akin to what he says here, about Enoch--see quote below, after the verse I was thinking about first):
Deuteronomy 20:5 - [related to the name "Enoch" meaning "dedicated" or "initiated"]
"And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it."
- H2596 (verb) - "to initiate, a house (that is to dedicate, or to commence to use)."
____________
[note my caveat at top...; quoting]
The Significance of Enoch's Translation.
City of God — St. Augustine
"For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name "Dedication" in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language."
[end quoting]
(made me also recall the posts I've made re: Heb9:8-9a
saying, "...the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness] yet having A STANDING [ / STASIS / STASIN ], which is a parable for the present time")
I've heard that too, but I would have no way of knowing whether or not it's true, so I don't really dwell on that particular train of thought, personally... lol
Deuteronomy 20:5 - [related to the name "Enoch" meaning "dedicated" or "initiated"]
"And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it."
- H2596 (verb) - "to initiate, a house (that is to dedicate, or to commence to use)."
____________
[note my caveat at top...; quoting]
The Significance of Enoch's Translation.
City of God — St. Augustine
"For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name "Dedication" in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language."
[end quoting]
(made me also recall the posts I've made re: Heb9:8-9a
saying, "...the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness] yet having A STANDING [ / STASIS / STASIN ], which is a parable for the present time")I've heard that too, but I would have no way of knowing whether or not it's true, so I don't really dwell on that particular train of thought, personally... lol
It is rare and precious insights like that they keep me coming back to Christian Chat.
-
1
- Show all
It's called divine discipline. It's in the Bible. All over it, in fact.
I absolutely and totally reject any notion that salvation will require any works.
But it seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of "grace" or you just flat out reject it. Which is it?
Well, if they don't keep the commandments, they won't live to see the availability to take the mark.
Real simple.
Your comment about my view being "a very strong doctrine". I have found from nearly 2 decades on various forums, that those who believe salvation can be lost have a very primitive understanding of God's discipline and fellowship.
Which explains at least part of the reason they can believe that salvation can be lost.
I absolutely and totally reject any notion that salvation will require any works.
But it seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of "grace" or you just flat out reject it. Which is it?
Well, if they don't keep the commandments, they won't live to see the availability to take the mark.
Real simple.
Your comment about my view being "a very strong doctrine". I have found from nearly 2 decades on various forums, that those who believe salvation can be lost have a very primitive understanding of God's discipline and fellowship.
Which explains at least part of the reason they can believe that salvation can be lost.
OK, explain yourself. Prove your claim with Scripture.
And, is there any mention of a U-turn in your proof texts?
Realize this: you have zero evidence for a pre-trib rapture without a U-turn verse.
If Jesus is going to take believers back up to heaven, that's a U-turn. And the Bible would mention it.
I believe what the Bible says. I don't believe what some people presume it says.
And, is there any mention of a U-turn in your proof texts?
Realize this: you have zero evidence for a pre-trib rapture without a U-turn verse.
If Jesus is going to take believers back up to heaven, that's a U-turn. And the Bible would mention it.
I believe what the Bible says. I don't believe what some people presume it says.
Plenty of wrath here.....
Ex 12:12
‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am theLORD.
To stipulate that the flood is not God's judgment upon the wicked is heresy. Jesus Himself parallels the flood of Noah with the time of the great tribulation which is wrath. Therefore the flood itself is wrath also.
2 Pet 2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
Surely you jest. 12 times it is explicitly stated that the tribulation is the time of God's wrath.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=wrath&t=NKJV#s=s_primary_66_1
Ex 12:12
‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am theLORD.
To stipulate that the flood is not God's judgment upon the wicked is heresy. Jesus Himself parallels the flood of Noah with the time of the great tribulation which is wrath. Therefore the flood itself is wrath also.
2 Pet 2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
Surely you jest. 12 times it is explicitly stated that the tribulation is the time of God's wrath.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=wrath&t=NKJV#s=s_primary_66_1
Revelation 14:12 has stated clearly that faith and keeping the commandments, which include not taking the mark, are required from tribulation saints.
You brush that aside by simply stating “if they don't keep the commandments, they won't live to see the availability to take the mark” which makes no sense at all.
You brush that aside by simply stating “if they don't keep the commandments, they won't live to see the availability to take the mark” which makes no sense at all.
Why?
White horses MUST be shown to prove any/every scripture is about the 2nd coming?
Revelation 14 is giving you a close up view of some of the aspects of the entire book. Not all.
Rev 7, 11, 12 & 13, 17, 18 & 19 do the same.
Why don't you ask The Holy Spirit why he didn't arrange the chapters of revelation to suit your liking.
While I agree with much of the rest of your post, I again find it necessary to point out what I'd just said a few minutes ago... that that ^ is not what is MEANT when pre-trib scholars use the term "imminence"... IOW, they do NOT mean by it, that Christ can come "at any moment throughout the past 2000 years [etc]," but rather that NO SIGNS precede "our Rapture" (they all FOLLOW it). This is not the same thing as saying "we have absolutely NO CLUE as to when" or that there are no other biblical indicators (such as the passage you were pointing out, as I also often point out), etc
-
1
- Show all
That isn't the debate. The debate is keeping them FOR WHAT?
You presume it's for salvation. But that would directly refute what Jesus said in John 10:28. Those who have been given eternal life, which is WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, SHALL NEVER PERISH.
What part of "never" do you not understand or agree with?
For those who understand the Bible and the teaching about God's discipline, it makes perfect sense.
I would be interested in what part of "never" you seem to not understand or agree.
You presume it's for salvation. But that would directly refute what Jesus said in John 10:28. Those who have been given eternal life, which is WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, SHALL NEVER PERISH.
What part of "never" do you not understand or agree with?
For those who understand the Bible and the teaching about God's discipline, it makes perfect sense.
I would be interested in what part of "never" you seem to not understand or agree.
I didn't say we have "no clue" as to when the Tribulation will occcur. In fact, Jesus noted there will be signs, just like the signs of the seasons.
Jesus said that He "was coming soon". But He wasn't speaking literally, or then He would have totally misspoke. He was speaking from His perspective of time. A day being like 1,000 years, and vice versa. That's what He obviously meant.
Jesus said that He "was coming soon". But He wasn't speaking literally, or then He would have totally misspoke. He was speaking from His perspective of time. A day being like 1,000 years, and vice versa. That's what He obviously meant.
Yeah, I wasn't saying that you were.
I was merely clarifying my own sentence.
Simply put, those [scholars] who use the term "imminence" are not saying "Jesus can come at any moment [throughout the entire past 2000 yrs]," but RATHER that "NO SIGNS precede our Rapture" (instead, they all FOLLOW it, and lead up to His Second Coming to the earth / His "RETURN" to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age<--that's what the "SIGNS" point to, not to "our Rapture" event).
IOW, there's nothing in Scripture saying, when you see XYZ, get ready to FLY (NO "SIGNS" precede it... they all FOLLOW it)--This is what they mean when they use the term "imminence" (no "signs" precede "our Rapture").
I was merely clarifying my own sentence.
Simply put, those [scholars] who use the term "imminence" are not saying "Jesus can come at any moment [throughout the entire past 2000 yrs]," but RATHER that "NO SIGNS precede our Rapture" (instead, they all FOLLOW it, and lead up to His Second Coming to the earth / His "RETURN" to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age<--that's what the "SIGNS" point to, not to "our Rapture" event).
IOW, there's nothing in Scripture saying, when you see XYZ, get ready to FLY (NO "SIGNS" precede it... they all FOLLOW it)--This is what they mean when they use the term "imminence" (no "signs" precede "our Rapture").
-
1
- Show all