Skip to comments.Apocalypse soon
Posted on 10/07/2008 8:41:53 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
click here to read article
You said — I think a more applicable question would be, “What does the Bible have to say about the rapture?”
Now, I agree with that, for sure. BUT, you must remember that this “issue” was raised by others, in that there was no one who ever understood that the Bible taught that (i.e., the “Rapture”, or being “taken up”).
So, this was not given as an answer from authority on the “teaching of the Rapture” — but rather — only an answer to some “criticism” that no one else ever saw the same thing (before) in history. And that was clearly not the case — as has been shown here.
NOW, having said that — indeed — the Bible is the authority for this teaching and not whether someone taught it five years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago.
In that light — *even* the “criticism” (from others) is illegitimate (according to your “thinking” above) because their criticism seems to indicate that for the Bible to have something to say “authoritatively” about an issue — it *must* have been “authenticated” by another person’s commentary and writing on the matter, sometime in ancient history (or else, the Bible is not “authoritative” on the issue). That’s absolutely false thinking.
No matter *when* a teaching is “promoted” by “people” — the Bible, alone and by itself, is the only authoritative teaching on the matter — no matter how many years or centuries it takes “people” to “discover” it.
You must remember that the “church” is something that was not known or taught about in the centuries before Jesus. It was a new thing. Now, I’m not saying the teaching of the Rapture was a new thing (because it wasn’t and it was quite old, going back many centuries) — but I’m just saying that to make a “criticism” on the basis of the “age of a teaching” is not legitimate.
AND..., from that standpoint — indeed, the Bible does teach such a thing as the Rapture (being caught up, taken up — forcefully, as in “Strong’s”).
Thanks for making that point and perhaps it will take people away from trying to make a big issue on “when” a teaching became known to the public and rather — into the authoritative word of God (instead).
Amen to that!
LOLshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded or Did the "church" exist earlier ? Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10
NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
I would have to do a lot more reading up on it to comment more thoroughly. Several things do come to mind, though. While the LLX is a translation from the original language that renders that word (that you reference, Ekklesia), I would think that one would want to go to the original language for a more thorough understanding of what was being said originally.
Now, for the New Testament, it was written in Greek, so that would be legitimate. For the Old Testament, I would want to hear how some of those language scholars compare the original language to the Greek version. And then, one would want to get into things like context and to whom it was written and so on.
The other initial thought that I had was that this would tend to mix up the distinction between the Jews and the Church, as the Bible speaks to these different groups and in different ways. If the Jews are the Church and the Church is the equivalent (or maybe a superset of the Jews) — then that would seem to play into Replacement Theology, in that the Church has assumed all the promises of God, which were given to the Jews (i.e., national Israel) and Israel has forfeited their rights and/or promises (to the Church).
Anyway, these are not really developed thoughts but only initial ones and I would have to go further into it and see where it leads. If it leads to the wrong places, then there would definitely be something wrong with it.
That remains to be seen...
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Very specifically: Romans 11 where Paul discusses who is grafted into whom.
NAsbU Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off,
and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them
and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
NAsbU Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off
so that I might be grafted in."
Paul warns against the pride of a Gentile follower of Yah'shua.
NAsbU Romans 11:22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God;
to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
NAsbU Romans 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief,
will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
A Jew who comes to know the Jewish Messiah for their salvation
does not become a Christian,
They become a "called out one", a member of the Ekklesia.
They become a Messianic Jew.
The L-rd's name ( Shem ) is not je-zeus;
it is Yah'shua ( YHvH is my salvation )
NAsbU Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
Which is why you must call on His Name for salvation.
We will have to agree to disagree on what the Bible teaches about the rapture. Nonetheless, I am sure that we can find common ground on John 3:16 as one of the key passages to describe a member of the invisible church.
I understand your argument about man not having to authenticate the Word of God. I agree that the Word of God stands on its own. My point is that there have been, throughout history, false teachers who teach one part of the Bible but ignore its message in its entirety. People unequipped with a broad understanding of the Bible and are in a teaching position can quite easily lead someone astray. In fact, at the time of the Reformation there were a number of teachers who thought they could go outside of the Church's boundaries now that they had "permission" to read the Bible. They were unequipped to teach, yet they in some cases collated large crowds. Sadly, in many of these cases, these crowds met an awful fate at the hands of authorities. It is still necessary for those that teach the Word of God to be solidly grounded in that word. The Bible must be used to interpret the Bible, not another man's commentaries. It is a self consistent book incapable of contradicting itself. Those who think they can teach who know but some of the Bible are mistaken. That is my point.
So, this was not given as an answer from authority on the teaching of the Rapture but rather only an answer to some criticism that no one else ever saw the same thing (before) in history. And that was clearly not the case as has been shown here
I am not arguing the history of the definition of the rapture. As an amateur historian, I find such debates interesting, but in terms of growing my faith, a distraction. I understand your point and have no further comment.
Christ said let no man deceive you.... so what is that GREAT deception that was continually warned would occur????? Ever heard of the mark of the 'beast'? Well it is what is in the mind and how that the physical labor is put forth via that right hand for the beast 'system'.
Just for the record and so we are not talking past one another, why don't you post the quotes from these ancient authors which you believe teaches a pre-trib rapture theory.
Sadly most modern Christians have NO clue who those of Israel literally are.... there were and are two houses that it is written that it will be Christ Himself that will rejoin and He was NOT talking about a piece of real estate that in modern times got called Israel. Remember that ‘civil’ war wherein the two houses were split and the Northern kingdom called ten tribe/Israel were sent into captivity to the Assyrian king and then the House of Judah with Benjamin were sent to the king of Babylon????
Yah, so? If that all it takes (speculation) to classify someone as a worldwide evangelist of incomparable proportions, then you can pretty much have the Bible say anything you want it to say.
We can see that this time of the Tribulation, besides being a time of Judgement is also a time of proclaiming the Gospel, too, as the angel is sent out to proclaim it all over the world.
Hmmm, curious. Rather than try to explain why angels (and only angels) in the book are the ones specifically identified as preaching the gospel, you want to extend that to the group symbolically referred to as the one hundred and forty four thousand in order to bolster your end-time theories. All with hype about worldwide evangelization.
But, Ill guarantee you that these 144,000 wont have their priorities wrong
More speculation. Based on what? You still havent told us from the Bible exactly who they are and what they will be doing or why there were identified by God.
They call their brothers "RACA" for not agreeing with their anti-semitism.
Feigned humility is most unbecoming. but if that fails, just toss out the "A"-word.
just toss out the "A"-word.
That's an automatic forfeit, isn't it?
Looks like I got ~75 posts to catch up on.
Actually, the Bible makes it pretty clear that the Church, Gods called out people, has existed in all ages. It was foretold to Abraham, who was called the after of many nations, and came to faith while he was still a gentile. Romans 4 and Galatians 3 teach that all those who are of faith are children of Abraham. The author of Acts speaks of the Church (called-out assembly, ekklesia) in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).
God has always had a plan for one people, and that plan was revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled perfectly in the New. (cf. Psalm 22:27,28; Isa. 42:1-9; 49:5,6,22,23; Zech. 2:11).
Desperation preceding surrender.
Looks like I got ~75 posts to catch up on.
"Do not go into the way of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10:6)
Is it your contention that when Jesus says "Israel" He was specifically excluding from outreach an members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin?
Sadly most modern Christians have NO clue who those of Israel literally are....
OK, so assume we are looking for biblical answers. What do you have to offer?
there were and are two houses that it is written that it will be Christ Himself that will rejoin and He was NOT talking about a piece of real estate that in modern times got called Israel. Remember that civil war wherein the two houses were split and the Northern kingdom called ten tribe/Israel were sent into captivity to the Assyrian king and then the House of Judah with Benjamin were sent to the king of Babylon????
Doesn't the word have multiple meanings in the Bible? Yes, it can refer to just the so-called "ten northern tribes". But it also has another meanings. (cf. Acts 7:42; Heb. 8:10 (contrast with v. 8)).
Where was "Israel" at the time of Christ? Are you saying that when Jesus and his disciples used the word "Israel" (gr, israel) to refer to the nation in the 1st century living in the plot of land in the Middle East, they were mistaken also?
Oh, and dont forget to pick up your prophecy chart so you too can know whats next.
You know, collecting end times trash 'n trinkets might be an interesting hobby. I keep seeing these B grade end of the world flicks in the 2 denarius bin at Walmart.....
All orthodox Christians agree that at Christs return, all the saints are resurrected and receive their glorified bodies. Those who are living at the time are changed and go into the glorified state without tasting physical death. Those who are alive will not precede those who have died in this transaction. All orthodox Christians also teach a resurrection of the unrighteous followed by their entry into eternal torment.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
What all orthodox Christians do not agree upon is the notion that the resurrection of the just and the unjust is separated by a period of time, whether it be 1000 years or 1007 years, or ??? Or, for that matter, whether there is a separation in time between the resurrection of one group of believers and another group.
In order to justify the second scenario, a whole lot of speculative ideas have to be read into 2 verses of the Bible, namely 1 Thess. 4:16,17. You have to believe (impose upon the text) that because Paul only mentions believers that he intended to place a chronological gap between the resurrection of the just and the unjust. Or, because Paul uses the phrase to meet the Lord in the air that somehow that means that Jesus turns the boat around and we all hightail it back to heaven to sit out the great tribulation. And because of this convoluted theology you have to assert that the trumpet of 1 Thess. 4 is different from the last trumpet of 1 Cor. 15. Or that the last trumpet of 1 Cor. 15 is really not the last trumpet because they are plainly other last trumpets in the book of Revelation (which supposedly all happens after the rapture, according to the popular theory).
So if you look a the two scenarios, and compare them to the Bible, the orthodox version which claims one resurrection of both the just and unjust and one general judgment of all men, and the second, with multiple coming, multiple appearances, multiple resurrections, multiple judgments, etc., you can understand why this second scenario has been rejected by the majority of Christians since its development in 1830.
Most of us have had enough time to study it over the last 170 years and found it does not, in fact, fit with all we read in the Bible.
The Rapture is a resurrection...Surely you've read about resurrections in the bible...
The rapture of the church is coincident with the resurrection. "And I will raise him up on the last day."
They go up and head towards and beyond the NORTH star..Cite, please. And suppose there isn't one when this happens. The pole precesses over time, you know.
Hah! I keep threatening my boys that if they ever cross me bad I'm going to rent every last Left Behind-type movie from the video store and make them watch them until their eyeballs bleed.