A Systematic Study of the Rapture through the use of Bible Scriptures

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lively Stone

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
854
59
0
Ontario, Canada
The ones Paul preached 2 Thessalonians 2 to were just Israelites???

What a great revelation you've made about yourself with that statement, for it reveals you have absolutely NO intention of staying with the Scriptures as written!

Are you of Orthodox Judaism or Islam pretending to be a Christian as some others here try to do?

I was responding to the Matthew passage.

As for 2 Thessalonians 2...

[sup]9[/sup] This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. [sup]10[/sup] He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. [sup]11[/sup] So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies. [sup]12[/sup] Then they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth.


They aren't believers, but we know that God is dealing with the Jew during that time and they are first and foremost on His agenda.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
"Certain usage of the term 'rapture' automatically makes a false assumption from the start, simply because of its popular usage used by the Pre-trib School and doctrinists" Some may have done this Veteran, I'll give you that, but have I done that even one time in this thread? "As a matter of fact, they try to correct others who label their Pre-trib theory as the 'secret rapture', claiming that phrase was never used to describe it originally." Have I done that even once in this thread? I have no problem with post-tribbers using the phrase "secret rapture" against the doctrine of the pre-tribbers any more than I do those in the pre-trib camp using the term "rapture" in their defense against the post-trib doctrinal view.


Maybe you ought to try reading the title of your thread again?


I fully understand your argument here Veteran "So when the word Rapture is used today, in the majority of cases, most people understand it to mean a Pre-trib coming and gathering to Christ, when per Scripture, Christ's coming and gathering of His Church is after... the tribulation per Matt.24. It's not a word written in The Bible, so it's better to preach what Scripture states, which is a gathering to Christ Jesus after the tribulation. Even a lot of folks I know that believe in a rapture don't really know the difference between pre-trib and post-trib. A gathering after the tribulation is definite, just as the Scripture is." but I still suggest that the entire thing is silly and for the most part amounts to nothing more than semantics.

Silly, nothing more than semantics, for definite simple Bible Scripture declaring the order and timing of Christ's second coming and our gathering? ONLY one versed in other doctrines than what Christ and His Apostles taught would assume the Scripture is a silly argument that amounts to nothing more than semantics!

You're slowly revealing to us just what persuasion your are of, and it does not appear to be Christ's coming and our gathering after the tribulation He directly stated in Matt.24:29-31!


If your post-tribulation "gathering to Christ" doctrine stands, and you are able to defend it through the scriptures, it shouldn't matter to you if the pre-tribbers call the event the "rapture" or not. For you will have already demonstrated from the scriptures that the event happens at the Second Coming after the tribulation rather than prior to tribulation right? If you are able to prove your viewpoint (post trib) on the doctrine of the "gathering/caught up", who cares if folks call it the "rapture" or the "gathering", let people call the even what they want to call it.

Firstly, Christ's second coming and our gathering after... the tribulation He warned is not 'my' idea. It's what the Scripture itself states, and in more than one place in God's Word. So even your statement of wrongly assuming... it's an idea from me reveals more of your probable stance against the Scripture itself.

Who cares if folks call it the Rapture? Those who stand in God's Holy Writ care, which should include yourself if you claim to have believed on Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Do you claim Christ Jesus as The Saviour, and your Saviour? If so, then why wouldn't you want to heed what He said in Matt.24:29-31 about the order of His coming and our gathering to Him instead of trying to play off of some fake semantics idea?

The original idea from the Edward Irving and Darby churches included the idea of a "secret rapture", not just simply a rapture. The word 'rapture' originated from the Latin for the Greek word 'harpazo', which means to be caught away. Other's coined the term "secret rapture" for what Darby was preaching, because it originally included the erroneous idea that the Church was going to be raptured away 'secretly', with the unbelievers left-behind not being aware of it. Darby's secret idea eventually got embarassing evidently, and the Pre-trib School has been trying to distance themselves from the secret idea ever since. Now those like Tim LaHaye with his Left-Behind series instead declare it won't be a secret event at all, departing from Darby's original doctrine.

Yet Christ's Church through history prior to the 1830's Darby ideas held to a second coming of Christ Jesus after... the tribulation He warned of, for over 1800 years! It's because that's actually what the Scripture really states. And now the Darbyites, Scofieldites, Tim LaHayites say the old Church and us who still heed that Scripture as written are wrong?!? This is not a Constitutional debate, which the U.S. Constitution was indeed written by men, even though 'some' have been busy attacking its written simplicity also. The penalty for delusion away from the Scripture will be much weightier than a Constitutional debate.


I would be careful on who you are calling "false prophets" Veteran. If other Christians in this forum (or elsewhere) differ from your understanding of this doctrine and believe the opposite viewpoint that does not make them a "false prophet". A "false prophet" is one who makes false prophetic claims, many times attributing them to God. A person attempting to determine an understanding of doctrine (correctly or incorrectly) isn't a "false prophet".

That I am... very careful of. I don't throw it out unless I really... mean it, just so you know. Those behind the Pre-trib doctrines are indeed... false prophets. Want me to say that again for you? How can I be so sure of that? Because it's not difficult at all to prove Scripturally the Pre-trib doctrine denies what God's Word actually states about the order of Christ's second coming and our gathering to Him. And all I need do is remind one of the Matthew 24:29-31 Scripture which is specific... about Christ's return and our gathering being after... the tribulation He warned us all of.



"But just HOW MANY Scriptures proofs does one need to grasp the true Biblical order of His coming and our gathering? Why wouldn't the Matthew 24:29-31 verses be enough for a believer on Christ Jesus, since they are direct statements by our Lord Jesus Himself? That Matt.24 example is never going to be enough for the false prophets who intend to falsify His Word in order to deceive. I still don't know at this point for sure. But it's not likely that one who understands that the day of Christ and day of the Lord phrases mean the same event would try to isolate them apart like you've tried to do. What would be the purpose? None. But, for one on the Pre-trib ideas, they like to separate different Bible phrases that all point to the same event of Christ's return and our gathering. Their dependence upon the Rapture word itself speaks volumes on that. There you go with that "Word study" idea again, when so far what you've been throwing out involves Topic study, not word study." Now I would love to get into this study with you in detail Veteran and defend my position (which I have yet to disclose) through use of the scriptures in what I call a Word study. If you want to call it a "topic" study that is fine with me, again I think we are squabbling over the little things instead of concentrating on the big picture. But I refuse to begin this study in this thread until we can all agree to debate in a manner of "civil discourse" like Christians instead of like animals! When we are all willing to calm down in Christ's Spirit of Love and argue our given points in a civil manner, then I am willing and even looking forward to getting into this study.!

When you call a Topic study instead a "Word study", you and I are never.. going to agree on that. Remember what I warned of those who try to separate Scripture context using that method? Word study is for clarifying a difficult term, but not for destroying existing Biblical context which is interleaved within many other Scriptures.

For example, the "day of Christ" phrase is used in the same... context about the time of Christ's return as the "day of the Lord" is in other Bible Scripture. In 2 Thess.2:2, the "day of Christ" phrase Paul declared is actually 'day of the Lord' in the Greek. The Greek word 'Christos' (Christ) is not even there in the Greek manuscripts. So there's how Word study works.

Do you think our Lord Jesus caused that 2 Thess.2:2 Greek distinction to make certain we couldn't get away from the idea of His coming on "the day of the Lord" event? I have no doubt that's why that was done, for Paul and Peter were adamant about Christ's return on "the day of the Lord" per 1 Thess.5 and 2 Pet.3:10. The 2 Thess.2:1-2 Scripture includes the idea of our gathering to Christ with that, showing once again the Greek translated as "day of Christ" there belongs to the same Matthew 24:29-31 context.


I'll tell you what Veteran ...I'll make a deal with you and all of your post-tribber friends. If you guys are willing to debate in "love" I will be willing to start calling this doctrine the "gathering" and stop calling it the "rapture" in this thread. Do we have a deal?
thekingdomkeys

I've been debating it all along, while you've been busy with other ideas. Just claiming that you've yet to begin doesn't mean much against what you've already revealed, probably unwantedly.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
I was responding to the Matthew passage. As for 2 Thessalonians 2... [sup]9[/sup] This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. [sup]10[/sup] He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. [sup]11[/sup] So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies. [sup]12[/sup] Then they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth. They aren't believers, but we know that God is dealing with the Jew during that time and they are first and foremost on His agenda.

I kind of wish you were right about that, but I know you're not. We can't expect to come to the Truth in God's Word by reading just one Scripture example. Understanding one Scripture is only the first... step in understanding it according to all of God's Word.

Paul was speaking his 2 Thess.2 warning to Gentiles, yet... he included the same... warning about a false one coming that will work with all power of signs and lying wonders that our Lord Jesus warned of in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, and to John in Revelation 13 about the "another beast" person working wonders and miracles on earth to deceive with. That one is linked to the "little horn" and "vile person" prophecies from the Book of Daniel.

Moreover, the false one sitting in the temple of God idea is not a new idea; it is specifically involving the sin that Satan himself first did in his original rebellion against God in the time of old, coveting God's Throne for himself. We are... supposed to recognize that idea from the Old Testament prophets.

Christ Jesus revealed more of it in His Book of Revelation, for the acts of the Revelation "dragon" beast king of Rev.13 & 17 is specifically related to his ten horned, ten crowned, seven headed beast kingdom of Rev.13:1. And that Rev.13:1 beast kingdom idea was revealed in connection with Satan's first rebellion of old per the Rev.12:3-4 previous Scripture. We're shown that beast kingdom of old that Satan first rebelled with had only seven crowns instead of ten crowns like the one in Rev.13:1.
 

Lively Stone

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
854
59
0
Ontario, Canada
I kind of wish you were right about that, but I know you're not. We can't expect to come to the Truth in God's Word by reading just one Scripture example. Understanding one Scripture is only the first... step in understanding it according to all of God's Word.

Paul was speaking his 2 Thess.2 warning to Gentiles, yet... he included the same... warning about a false one coming that will work with all power of signs and lying wonders that our Lord Jesus warned of in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, and to John in Revelation 13 about the "another beast" person working wonders and miracles on earth to deceive with. That one is linked to the "little horn" and "vile person" prophecies from the Book of Daniel.

Moreover, the false one sitting in the temple of God idea is not a new idea; it is specifically involving the sin that Satan himself first did in his original rebellion against God in the time of old, coveting God's Throne for himself. We are... supposed to recognize that idea from the Old Testament prophets.

Christ Jesus revealed more of it in His Book of Revelation, for the acts of the Revelation "dragon" beast king of Rev.13 & 17 is specifically related to his ten horned, ten crowned, seven headed beast kingdom of Rev.13:1. And that Rev.13:1 beast kingdom idea was revealed in connection with Satan's first rebellion of old per the Rev.12:3-4 previous Scripture. We're shown that beast kingdom of old that Satan first rebelled with had only seven crowns instead of ten crowns like the one in Rev.13:1.

I am aware of what the word says, which includes the fact that the Tribulation is meant for the unbelieving world during that time that God has appointed to work with His people, Israel.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
I am aware of what the word says, which includes the fact that the Tribulation is meant for the unbelieving world during that time that God has appointed to work with His people, Israel.

You're wrong about who the tribulation is upon, and meant for.


ORDER OF EVENTS PER THE SCRIPTURE:

1.

Matt 24:21-31
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Since you have to recognize that tribulation as being yet future to us today because of your Pre-trib stance, that reveals our Lord Jesus did not just give that as only meant for His disciples at His first coming. The tribulation will be shortened specifically for the sake of Christ's ELECT servants. That means... His elect servants, His Church, is still on earth to go through the tribulation. The so-called Rapture has not happened at that prophetic point.


2.

Matt.24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, he is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, he is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.

During that tribulation time, IF... anyone comes up to His elect and says something like that, "Lo, here is Christ, or there", our Lord Jesus commanded us to not believe it! It is specifically during... that tribulation timing that He warned His servants of that pseudo-Christ that will work great signs and wonders on earth so powerful in deception, that it would ALMOST deceive His own elect. What do you think that working will do to a Christian believer that is weak in God's Word about the end-time events and warnings, especially those being told by men they're going to be 'raptured' before any of that happens?


3.

Matt.24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
(KJV)


One, Two, Three... that's the order of the coming tribulation, time of deception meant for the deceived, and then Christ's return with the sound of the trumpet and gathering of His not-deceived elect saints, in that order.

The sounding of that trumpet is the same one Apostle Paul taught of in 1 Thess.4 and 1 Cor.15, and which our Lord Jesus also gave in His Book of Revelation per Chapter 11, the 7th Trumpet.
 

thekingdomkeys

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
39
3
0
Hello again Veteran. "Maybe you ought to try reading the title of your thread again?" I used the term "rapture" in my thread title (A Systematic Study of the Rapture through the use of Bible Scriptures), but nowhere in the title, but where is the "certain usage" that makes it so offensive to you? There you go again veteran "Silly, nothing more than semantics, for definite simple Bible Scripture declaring the order and timing of Christ's second coming and our gathering? ONLY one versed in other doctrines than what Christ and His Apostles taught would assume the Scripture is a silly argument that amounts to nothing more than semantics!", missquoting and falsely accussing me. Nowhere have I called or taught that "Scripture is a silly", I stated that your argument of not using the word "rapture" is silly.

"You're slowly revealing to us just what persuasion your are of, and it does not appear to be Christ's coming and our gathering after the tribulation He directly stated in Matt.24:29-31!" Where am I slowly revealing my persuasion Veteran? This is all silly and childish.

The false accussations and presumptions continue: "If so, then why wouldn't you want to heed what He said in Matt.24:29-31 about the order of His coming and our gathering to Him instead of trying to play off of some fake semantics idea?"

"That I am... very careful of. I don't throw it out unless I really... mean it, just so you know. Those behind the Pre-trib doctrines are indeed... false prophets." False prophets first have to be prophets (they have to prophesize) before they can technically be called "false prophets". Falsely (if that turns out to be the case) interpretting a doctrine from the scriptures doesn't make them a "false prophet".

"When you call a Topic study instead a "Word study", you and I are never.. going to agree on that." I have already told you Veteran, that I don't care what type of study you call it, haven't I? These little trivia things (terminology dubbed by others) is of no importance to me.

"...the "day of Christ" phrase is used in the same... context about the time of Christ's return as the "day of the Lord" is in other Bible Scripture. In 2 Thess.2:2, the "day of Christ" phrase Paul declared is actually 'day of the Lord' in the Greek. The Greek word 'Christos' (Christ) is not even there in the Greek manuscripts. So there's how Word study works. Do you think our Lord Jesus caused that 2 Thess.2:2 Greek distinction to make certain we couldn't get away from the idea of His coming on "the day of the Lord" event? I have no doubt that's why that was done, for Paul and Peter were adamant about Christ's return on "the day of the Lord" per 1 Thess.5 and 2 Pet.3:10. The 2 Thess.2:1-2 Scripture includes the idea of our gathering to Christ with that, showing once again the Greek translated as "day of Christ" there belongs to the same Matthew 24:29-31 context." Again Veteran, I will be glad to get into all of this stuff with you (deep study) once we are able to establish a few ground rules. I already feel like my thread is being hijacked (from both sides/camps). This study hasn't even started yet in my eyes, but one would never know that by reading all of the post's within this thread. This is my thread and I should be able to establish the way it operates. If people don't like the way that I want to operate it, they don't have to participate in it. People from both sides are already discussing their viewpoints and arguments on the "rapture" and getting into the scriptures (do that in your own post's) before we have agreed on the ground rules. Please create your own threads to do that.

"I've been debating it all along, while you've been busy with other ideas. Just claiming that you've yet to begin doesn't mean much against what you've already revealed, probably unwantedly." Again I don't agree, but more importantly wheres' the "love" Veteran ...where's the "love"?

You guys have been picking and choosing what you quote and answer from me and are ignoring the rest. What about the "love"?

I offered you a deal Veteran, we opperate in "love" in this thread debate and I will call this debate "the gathering" (within this thread), I'll even call this a "topical" study rather than a "word" study if that will make you happy! I am making all kind of consessions to you, are you willing to operate in love? Once we come to some agreements on ground rules then I will step through this study, step by step, in my fashion (call it what you want) and I promise you that I will cover all of the scriptures in do time. But you have to show some patience here Veteran. Help me out here, will you?
thekingdomkeys

P.S. I no longer have spell check capability in this thread, can anyone tell me what is wrong or if it is "operator error"? Also, how can I perform multiple quotes like you guys are doing? I haven't figured that one out yet either, ha, ha.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Hello again Veteran. "Maybe you ought to try reading the title of your thread again?" I used the term "rapture" in my thread title (A Systematic Study of the Rapture through the use of Bible Scriptures), but nowhere in the title, but where is the "certain usage" that makes it so offensive to you? There you go again veteran "Silly, nothing more than semantics, for definite simple Bible Scripture declaring the order and timing of Christ's second coming and our gathering? ONLY one versed in other doctrines than what Christ and His Apostles taught would assume the Scripture is a silly argument that amounts to nothing more than semantics!", missquoting and falsely accussing me. Nowhere have I called or taught that "Scripture is a silly", I stated that your argument of not using the word "rapture" is silly.


Then you should be more careful how you post your own words, like those highlighted in red:

"I fully understand your argument here Veteran "So when the word Rapture is used today, in the majority of cases, most people understand it to mean a Pre-trib coming and gathering to Christ, when per Scripture, Christ's coming and gathering of His Church is after... the tribulation per Matt.24. It's not a word written in The Bible, so it's better to preach what Scripture states, which is a gathering to Christ Jesus after the tribulation. Even a lot of folks I know that believe in a rapture don't really know the difference between pre-trib and post-trib. A gathering after the tribulation is definite, just as the Scripture is." but I still suggest that the entire thing is silly and for the most part amounts to nothing more than semantics."

The Scripture is plain enough without resorting to un-Biblical terms like the 'Rapture'. But to compare how Christ's coming and our gathering per Scripture as being no different than using that term Rapture certainly is not about semantics, nor is it silly. And that was my point.


"You're slowly revealing to us just what persuasion your are of, and it does not appear to be Christ's coming and our gathering after the tribulation He directly stated in Matt.24:29-31!" Where am I slowly revealing my persuasion Veteran? This is all silly and childish.

The false accussations and presumptions continue: "If so, then why wouldn't you want to heed what He said in Matt.24:29-31 about the order of His coming and our gathering to Him instead of trying to play off of some fake semantics idea?"

I feel that is is a very... fair question, one that you apparently don't care to answer per the written Scripture.


"That I am... very careful of. I don't throw it out unless I really... mean it, just so you know. Those behind the Pre-trib doctrines are indeed... false prophets." False prophets first have to be prophets (they have to prophesize) before they can technically be called "false prophets". Falsely (if that turns out to be the case) interpretting a doctrine from the scriptures doesn't make them a "false prophet".

And what, the preaching of a Pre-trib Rapture of the Church when Christ Jesus declared statements to the contrary doesn't reveal working of false prophets?!? Evidently you've missed Old and New Testament Bible study about the idea of false prophets. Try again to redefine what a false prophet is per your own desires, and I'll show more of how you failed in that.


"When you call a Topic study instead a "Word study", you and I are never.. going to agree on that." I have already told you Veteran, that I don't care what type of study you call it, haven't I? These little trivia things (terminology dubbed by others) is of no importance to me.

I realize the difference is not important to you, because if you did... recognize the difference you would never be able to make attempts to re-define the context of Scripture by trying isolation techniques using Word studies. That was easily recognizable in your original post with your trying to isolate the "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord" phrases, when they are both about the same timing of Christ's second coming per Scripture context they're written in. The Pre-trib school tries to do that with the event of the blowing of the trumpet for Christ's return also, per 1 Thess.4 and 1 Cor.15, wrongly teaching that Paul's "last trump" is a different one than "the trump of God" per the 1 Thess.4 Scripture. Yet, they are both the same trumpet event involving the raising of the dead. It's the 7th Trumpet of Rev.11, the time of Christ's return and our gathering, and also the same trumpet of Matt.24:31 too!



Again Veteran, I will be glad to get into all of this stuff with you (deep study) once we are able to establish a few ground rules. I already feel like my thread is being hijacked (from both sides/camps). This study hasn't even started yet in my eyes, but one would never know that by reading all of the post's within this thread. This is my thread and I should be able to establish the way it operates. If people don't like the way that I want to operate it, they don't have to participate in it. People from both sides are already discussing their viewpoints and arguments on the "rapture" and getting into the scriptures (do that in your own post's) before we have agreed on the ground rules. Please create your own threads to do that.

Sorry to have ruined the way you desire to operate threads you began. Yet I have been declaring Scripture after Scripture so far, and you've done nothing but sit back and complain about my coverage of the matter. What kind of sign is that? Hammerstone has set the ground rules already here, and I don't see my ready coverage of Scripture in contrast to what you have said so far violating that.


"I've been debating it all along, while you've been busy with other ideas. Just claiming that you've yet to begin doesn't mean much against what you've already revealed, probably unwantedly." Again I don't agree, but more importantly wheres' the "love" Veteran ...where's the "love"?

Why would you ever think I'm not writing my responses in love to you as a Christian brother? If someone disagrees with you, does that automatically mean they hate you or something?


I offered you a deal Veteran, we opperate in "love" in this thread debate and I will call this debate "the gathering" (within this thread), I'll even call this a "topical" study rather than a "word" study if that will make you happy! I am making all kind of consessions to you, are you willing to operate in love? Once we come to some agreements on ground rules then I will step through this study, step by step, in my fashion (call it what you want) and I promise you that I will cover all of the scriptures in do time. But you have to show some patience here Veteran. Help me out here, will you?
thekingdomkeys

I have already begun, and been waiting, which you should have realized from my very first post covering Scripture. If you're interested in your original declared aim, then why would you ever see such Scripture coverage as something different than what you asked for? As far as debate about the terms "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord", I think that's pretty much over. Scripture settled that. Next?


P.S. I no longer have spell check capability in this thread, can anyone tell me what is wrong or if it is "operator error"? Also, how can I perform multiple quotes like you guys are doing? I haven't figured that one out yet either, ha, ha.

I realized that too. Guess we'll have to remember how to spell.
 

PropphecyStudent

New Member
Jan 6, 2012
139
0
0
...Tell me how you can know that I have a "dilemma" on my stand on the doctrine of the "rapture" when I have yet to tell anyone what my stand is? I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I have claimed to be "pre, mid or post"? thekingdomkeys

This one:
... I still don't even understand why there is all the attacks against me and supposedly my stand on the doctrine of the "rapture". In fact I haven't even given my position on the "rapture" yet, nor have I even really gotten into the study yet. I just don't get it.
thekingdomkeys



Thank you ProphecyStudent for acknowledging that you appreciate my attempting to have an objective analysis on the rapture concept. Am I more interested in studying the nuances of the "various analogies, metaphores, similies, inferences, shadows, and types"? No I'm not, these are all important individually, but I want to analyze the entire picture and was hoping that I would get a few of you guys that would be interested in doing it with me. thekingdomkeys

I'm really not into investigating all the aspects of a failed doctrine, when truth of the matter is clear. And if that truth is in dispute, then one might have to probe deeper. But right now, scripture provides a concise denial of a tribulation era rapture at outlined in Post #13:

Rev. 20
4 ... I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[sup][a][/sup] thousand years. [sup]5[/sup] But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [sup]6[/sup] Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.

... thus if the FIRST resurrection of the dead is a New Millennium occurrence , (and a tribulation ~rapture~ requires a resurrection of the dead before the saints are raised ~during the tribulation~), then there can be no ~rapture~ event during the tribulation era. Otherwise THEY would be the FIRST resurrection, and the martyred saints would be the SECOND resurrection.




As such, do you disagree with the Millennial Kingdom FIRST resurrection of the martyred saints which shall rule and reign with Jesus for the thousand years? If so please explain your reasons. (If we resolve the veracity of this text, then all other arguments may be moot.)
 

thekingdomkeys

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
39
3
0
"I fully understand your argument here Veteran "So when the word Rapture is used today, in the majority of cases, most people understand it to mean a Pre-trib coming and gathering to Christ, when per Scripture, Christ's coming and gathering of His Church is after... the tribulation per Matt.24. It's not a word written in The Bible, so it's better to preach what Scripture states, which is a gathering to Christ Jesus after the tribulation. Even a lot of folks I know that believe in a rapture don't really know the difference between pre-trib and post-trib. A gathering after the tribulation is definite, just as the Scripture is." but I still suggest that the entire thing is silly and for the most part amounts to nothing more than semantics."

Veteran said: "Then you should be more careful how you post your own words, like those highlighted in red:"
thekingdomkeys: I said that I fully understand your argument Veteran, I didn't say that I fully agreed with it, did I? Thus, my belief that this nitpicking stuff over coined terms is just semantics and rediculously silly. But I have repeatedly told you that I am willing to stop using the terms "rapture" and "word study" in this forum debate if you are willing to operate in "civil discourse" in "love", which you still haven't agreed to yet.

Veteran said: "The Scripture is plain enough without resorting to un-Biblical terms like the 'Rapture'. But to compare how Christ's coming and our gathering per Scripture as being no different than using that term Rapture certainly is not about semantics, nor is it silly. And that was my point."
thekingdomkeys: Don't put words in my mouth Veteran, since I never made such a comparison. Show me where I have done such a thing???

Veteran said: I feel that it is a very... fair question, one that you apparently don't care to answer per the written Scripture."
thekingdomkeys: I have already told you veteran on more than one occassion (let the other forum members be my judge) that I will be willing to get into a deep study with you and answer each and every question that you pose to me, when and if you are willing to continue this debate in with "civil discourse" (stop the name calling, false accussations, presumptions, etc) and you have yet to agree to those terms. Until we come to an agreement on the ground rules, you will get no discussions from me into the subject matter of this debate.

Veteran said: "And what, the preaching of a Pre-trib Rapture of the Church when Christ Jesus declared statements to the contrary doesn't reveal working of false prophets?!? Evidently you've missed Old and New Testament Bible study about the idea of false prophets. Try again to redefine what a false prophet is per your own desires, and I'll show more of how you failed in that."
thekingdomkeys: Let's stay within the scriptures to define a "false prophet" Veteran. Fair enough? Show me where the scriptures state that one interpretting Biblical prophecy incorrectly is defined as being a "false prophet". If you can do that I will agree with you, until then please stop bringing this up.

Veteran said: "I realize the difference is not important to you, because if you did... recognize the difference you would never be able to make attempts to re-define the context of Scripture by trying isolation techniques using Word studies. That was easily recognizable in your original post with your trying to isolate the "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord" phrases, when they are both about the same timing of Christ's second coming per Scripture context they're written in. The Pre-trib school tries to do that with the event of the blowing of the trumpet for Christ's return also, per 1 Thess.4 and 1 Cor.15, wrongly teaching that Paul's "last trump" is a different one than "the trump of God" per the 1 Thess.4 Scripture. Yet, they are both the same trumpet event involving the raising of the dead. It's the 7th Trumpet of Rev.11, the time of Christ's return and our gathering, and also the same trumpet of Matt.24:31 too!"
thekingdomkeys: Again, totally untrue Veteran ...nowhere have I tried to "re-define the context of Scripture by trying isolation techniques", to the contrary I have stated that when and if we ever started this study that I would cover all scripture on the topic and answer everyone's questions. I said that we would dissect the phrases "Day of Christ" and "Day of the Lord" (which we haven't done yet) and then begin to add more phrases like "thief in the night" (which I already started to do) etc. I said that we would systematically step through all the verses pertaining to this doctrine and that I would be willing to answer each and every question put before me in due time. I only asked for patience and civil discourse, neither of which I have received! I don't know how much more I can accomodate? Again let the members of this forum be my judge!

Veteran said: "Sorry to have ruined the way you desire to operate threads you began. Yet I have been declaring Scripture after Scripture so far, and you've done nothing but sit back and complain about my coverage of the matter. What kind of sign is that? Hammerstone has set the ground rules already here, and I don't see my ready coverage of Scripture in contrast to what you have said so far violating that."
thekingdomkeys: I don't get my marching orders on how to operate a debate from Hammerstone, I seek to my marching orders from the Lord! Let God be my judge! I only ask that we set some ground rules, civil discourse by operating in Christ's "love". If you are a Christian Veteran, you should not have a problem with these ground rules! These false accussations, name calling, and being presumptuous stuff, has got to stop!

Veteran said: "Why would you ever think I'm not writing my responses in love to you as a Christian brother? If someone disagrees with you, does that automatically mean they hate you or something?"
thekingdomkeys: Let me give you an analogy here. You talk about the "rapture" Veteran, and ask how many examples you have to give before I will agree with your stance on this doctrine. I'll pose the same question to you Veteran, how many examples of how you have been presumptuous of me (stating that you know what I beleive on this doctrine), name calling of me and/or others, and false accusations of me do I have to give you before it will begin to sink in? Do you need me to go back an requote a bunch of examples for you yet again Veteran??? These are the actions that are operating outside of God's Spirit of love. Disagreeing is fine, so long as it is done in love. Do you still not understand the definition of "love"?

Veteran said: "I have already begun, and been waiting, which you should have realized from my very first post covering Scripture. If you're interested in your original declared aim, then why would you ever see such Scripture coverage as something different than what you asked for?"
thekingdomkeys: Yeah you began alright ...you began attacking my name and the name of Living Stone! Right, wrong or indifferent gives you no right to act the way you continue to act!

Veteran said: "As far as debate about the terms "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord", I think that's pretty much over. Scripture settled that. Next?"
thekingdomkeys: Pretty much over, not true once again, it has yet to begin. If "pretty much over" means that you have said what you want to say on the matter with no regard what others have to say (like myself), then I agree it is pretty much over. But if you are willing to hear what others have to say on the topic and not just what you have to say, then the discussion has yet to begin! I wasn't ever able to get into the first word comparison of the "Day of Christ" and the "Day of the Lord", because I have had to spend the last several days defending my good name! Let's agree to have "civil discourse" and then I will begin this study. Is that too much to ask?

Veteran said: "I realized that too (spell check not working). Guess we'll have to remember how to spell."
thekingdomkeys: OK, I guess the spell checker is no longer working for any of us (who is the system administrator at this forum? how do we inform him/her of the problem?), but how do I perform the multiple quotes that you are doing Veteran, I still haven't learned that one?
thekingdomkeys
 

thekingdomkeys

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
39
3
0
thekingdomkeys said:
"...Tell me how you can know that I have a "dilemma" on my stand on the doctrine of the "rapture" when I have yet to tell anyone what my stand is? I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I have claimed to be "pre, mid or post"?

PropphecyStudent said: "This one:"
thekingdomkeys said:
"... I still don't even understand why there is all the attacks against me and supposedly my stand on the doctrine of the "rapture". In fact I haven't even given my position on the "rapture" yet, nor have I even really gotten into the study yet. I just don't get it."
thekingdomkeys: You have got to be kidding me? I have repeatedly told you and everyone else that I don't adhere to your definition of what the word "rapture" means. I have stated the opposite, that I have no problem with the term "rapture" and that I define it (like most book authors define it) as representing the time of being "caught up" ...whether that means "pre, mid or post-tribulation". So now that you know (I thought I explained this a few times already, ha, ha) how I define the word "rapture" you can clearly see that your example doesn't stand, right? Try again PropphecyStudent.

thekingdomkeys said:
"Thank you ProphecyStudent for acknowledging that you appreciate my attempting to have an objective analysis on the rapture concept. Am I more interested in studying the nuances of the "various analogies, metaphores, similies, inferences, shadows, and types"? No I'm not, these are all important individually, but I want to analyze the entire picture and was hoping that I would get a few of you guys that would be interested in doing it with me."

PropphecyStudent said: "I'm really not into investigating all the aspects of a failed doctrine, when truth of the matter is clear. And if that truth is in dispute, then one might have to probe deeper. But right now, scripture provides a concise denial of a tribulation era rapture at outlined in Post #13:
thekingdomkeys: Again, we define rapture differently (thus no failed doctrine), so we are talking about "apples and oranges" until we come to an agreement on terminology here.

PropphecyStudent said: "Rev. 20
4 ... I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[sup][a][/sup] thousand years. [sup]5[/sup] But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [sup]6[/sup] Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.

... thus if the FIRST resurrection of the dead is a New Millennium occurrence , (and a tribulation ~rapture~ requires a resurrection of the dead before the saints are raised ~during the tribulation~), then there can be no ~rapture~ event during the tribulation era. Otherwise THEY would be the FIRST resurrection, and the martyred saints would be the SECOND resurrection.


As such, do you disagree with the Millennial Kingdom FIRST resurrection of the martyred saints which shall rule and reign with Jesus for the thousand years? If so please explain your reasons. (If we resolve the veracity of this text, then all other arguments may be moot.)"

thekingdomkeys: Again PropphecyStudent, until our main participant (Veteran) either agrees to operate in this study through the use of civil discourse in love, or opts out of this thread, I am not planning on continuing the debate. Veteran needs to decide what he intends on doing. I will no longer allow him or others to hijack this thread. I have set the ground rules and I intend on staying true to those ground rules. I will gladly continue this study once Veteran decides what he intends on doing here.
thekingdomkeys
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
"I fully understand your argument here Veteran "So when the word Rapture is used today, in the majority of cases, most people understand it to mean a Pre-trib coming and gathering to Christ, when per Scripture, Christ's coming and gathering of His Church is after... the tribulation per Matt.24. It's not a word written in The Bible, so it's better to preach what Scripture states, which is a gathering to Christ Jesus after the tribulation. Even a lot of folks I know that believe in a rapture don't really know the difference between pre-trib and post-trib. A gathering after the tribulation is definite, just as the Scripture is." but I still suggest that the entire thing is silly and for the most part amounts to nothing more than semantics."

Veteran said: "Then you should be more careful how you post your own words, like those highlighted in red:"
thekingdomkeys: I said that I fully understand your argument Veteran, I didn't say that I fully agreed with it, did I? Thus, my belief that this nitpicking stuff over coined terms is just semantics and rediculously silly. But I have repeatedly told you that I am willing to stop using the terms "rapture" and "word study" in this forum debate if you are willing to operate in "civil discourse" in "love", which you still haven't agreed to yet.

Veteran said: "The Scripture is plain enough without resorting to un-Biblical terms like the 'Rapture'. But to compare how Christ's coming and our gathering per Scripture as being no different than using that term Rapture certainly is not about semantics, nor is it silly. And that was my point."
thekingdomkeys: Don't put words in my mouth Veteran, since I never made such a comparison. Show me where I have done such a thing???

It's not silly, but a very serious matter, especially in regards to the ideas the Pre-trib school is pushing today with their forgetting to mention the original doctrine from Darby included the idea of a 'secret' rapture of the saints prior to the tribulation, and instead just using the Rapture word.



Veteran said:
I feel that it is a very... fair question, one that you apparently don't care to answer per the written Scripture."
thekingdomkeys: I have already told you veteran on more than one occassion (let the other forum members be my judge) that I will be willing to get into a deep study with you and answer each and every question that you pose to me, when and if you are willing to continue this debate in with "civil discourse" (stop the name calling, false accussations, presumptions, etc) and you have yet to agree to those terms. Until we come to an agreement on the ground rules, you will get no discussions from me into the subject matter of this debate.

Where have I called you names, or made false accusations? How has my pointing out Scripture to you been about that? Do you feel anyone who denounces a Pre-trib Rapture idea with Scripture proof is doing name-calling and making false accusations against you?

What ground rules, rules according to what you set? Why should anyone here agree to that, since it could easily serve as a method to limit what the Scriptures state?


Veteran said:
"And what, the preaching of a Pre-trib Rapture of the Church when Christ Jesus declared statements to the contrary doesn't reveal working of false prophets?!? Evidently you've missed Old and New Testament Bible study about the idea of false prophets. Try again to redefine what a false prophet is per your own desires, and I'll show more of how you failed in that."
thekingdomkeys: Let's stay within the scriptures to define a "false prophet" Veteran. Fair enough? Show me where the scriptures state that one interpretting Biblical prophecy incorrectly is defined as being a "false prophet". If you can do that I will agree with you, until then please stop bringing this up.

That is a huge... Biblical topic, especially in regards to the false prophets of Baal per the Old Testament Scripture. But here's one per Peter.

2 Pet 2:1-3
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
(KJV)

So, the idea of a false prophet involves the idea of teaching too? Yes. The Greek even means a 'spurious teacher'. Might want to look up John 10 also where our Lord Jesus called those who are not real shepherds that care not about the sheep preach instead for money as a 'hireling'. The word hireling is about a wage-worker used in the preaching for money sense by Christ Jesus Himself.


Veteran said:
"I realize the difference is not important to you, because if you did... recognize the difference you would never be able to make attempts to re-define the context of Scripture by trying isolation techniques using Word studies. That was easily recognizable in your original post with your trying to isolate the "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord" phrases, when they are both about the same timing of Christ's second coming per Scripture context they're written in. The Pre-trib school tries to do that with the event of the blowing of the trumpet for Christ's return also, per 1 Thess.4 and 1 Cor.15, wrongly teaching that Paul's "last trump" is a different one than "the trump of God" per the 1 Thess.4 Scripture. Yet, they are both the same trumpet event involving the raising of the dead. It's the 7th Trumpet of Rev.11, the time of Christ's return and our gathering, and also the same trumpet of Matt.24:31 too!"
thekingdomkeys: Again, totally untrue Veteran ...nowhere have I tried to "re-define the context of Scripture by trying isolation techniques", to the contrary I have stated that when and if we ever started this study that I would cover all scripture on the topic and answer everyone's questions. I said that we would dissect the phrases "Day of Christ" and "Day of the Lord" (which we haven't done yet) and then begin to add more phrases like "thief in the night" (which I already started to do) etc. I said that we would systematically step through all the verses pertaining to this doctrine and that I would be willing to answer each and every question put before me in due time. I only asked for patience and civil discourse, neither of which I have received! I don't know how much more I can accomodate? Again let the members of this forum be my judge!

I already dissected them per Scripture, which you refused commenting.


Veteran said:
"Sorry to have ruined the way you desire to operate threads you began. Yet I have been declaring Scripture after Scripture so far, and you've done nothing but sit back and complain about my coverage of the matter. What kind of sign is that? Hammerstone has set the ground rules already here, and I don't see my ready coverage of Scripture in contrast to what you have said so far violating that."
thekingdomkeys: I don't get my marching orders on how to operate a debate from Hammerstone, I seek to my marching orders from the Lord! Let God be my judge! I only ask that we set some ground rules, civil discourse by operating in Christ's "love". If you are a Christian Veteran, you should not have a problem with these ground rules! These false accussations, name calling, and being presumptuous stuff, has got to stop!

I can honor one's belief fine, even if it does not stay within the Scriptures. And I haven't any problem with a groundrule about loving the brethren, which I don't see the need for it to be stated in order to properly have a debate. But there you go with that namecalling, false accusations stuff again, instead of attempting to address Scriptures I've already posted.


Veteran said:
"Why would you ever think I'm not writing my responses in love to you as a Christian brother? If someone disagrees with you, does that automatically mean they hate you or something?"
thekingdomkeys: Let me give you an analogy here. You talk about the "rapture" Veteran, and ask how many examples you have to give before I will agree with your stance on this doctrine. I'll pose the same question to you Veteran, how many examples of how you have been presumptuous of me (stating that you know what I beleive on this doctrine), name calling of me and/or others, and false accusations of me do I have to give you before it will begin to sink in? Do you need me to go back an requote a bunch of examples for you yet again Veteran??? These are the actions that are operating outside of God's Spirit of love. Disagreeing is fine, so long as it is done in love. Do you still not understand the definition of "love"?

I never asked you to agree with me, nor with Scripture I posted. Instead, I'm asking why you would not... agree with the Scripture I've posted? Huge difference. I'm not certain how you believe on this matter, like I've said before. I'm simply trying to get you to state your position, instead of trying to make some requirement for debate.


Veteran said:
"I have already begun, and been waiting, which you should have realized from my very first post covering Scripture. If you're interested in your original declared aim, then why would you ever see such Scripture coverage as something different than what you asked for?"
thekingdomkeys: Yeah you began alright ...you began attacking my name and the name of Living Stone! Right, wrong or indifferent gives you no right to act the way you continue to act!

What??? Now that is... totally off the wall there! I have every... right to POST Scripture evidence for God's Truth, regardless of who... it displeases. That's specifically what this Forum is about, God's Truth in His Word. That's why I have no problem backing up what I cover with Scripture proof, and with many often at that. I don't even know... your name, and certainly have not commented on it either! That's a totally unfounded accusation!

Veteran said:
"As far as debate about the terms "day of Christ" and "day of the Lord", I think that's pretty much over. Scripture settled that. Next?"
thekingdomkeys: Pretty much over, not true once again, it has yet to begin. If "pretty much over" means that you have said what you want to say on the matter with no regard what others have to say (like myself), then I agree it is pretty much over. But if you are willing to hear what others have to say on the topic and not just what you have to say, then the discussion has yet to begin! I wasn't ever able to get into the first word comparison of the "Day of Christ" and the "Day of the Lord", because I have had to spend the last several days defending my good name! Let's agree to have "civil discourse" and then I will begin this study. Is that too much to ask?

I've been waiting for your coverage of what you originally put out about it, but have yet to hear your position. Defending your good name??? Another miscue totally off the subject.


Veteran said:
"I realized that too (spell check not working). Guess we'll have to remember how to spell."
thekingdomkeys: OK, I guess the spell checker is no longer working for any of us (who is the system administrator at this forum? how do we inform him/her of the problem?), but how do I perform the multiple quotes that you are doing Veteran, I still haven't learned that one?
thekingdomkeys

Might be a spell-check button somewhere we're missing, since Hammerstone's website update. Haven't had time to look under the profile menus. To get multiple quotes, all you do is hit the "Quote" button at the bottom of one's post, all the person's quotes are in the small text entry box at the bottom. Where you want to split ideas in one's post, use the "
in front of the statement, and then close their end with "
" (Omit the quotation marks I just showed).

Come on, let's start. I relenquish to you the first start. (Hopefully not too long, and we each should wait for each other's rebuttal).

Well, I can't write the opening and close brackets without them being rendered in HTML. To put something in quote, start with an left bracket and the word quote inside with a close right bracket. For the end of the quote add a backslash to the quote inside a set of brackets.
 

PropphecyStudent

New Member
Jan 6, 2012
139
0
0
thekingdomkeys said:
"...Tell me how you can know that I have a "dilemma" ...
Ummmmm, the "delimma" was all the attacks in your Topic. LOL It was not about your posts! :)


thekingdomkeys: Again, we define rapture differently (thus no failed doctrine), so we are talking about "apples and oranges" until we come to an agreement on terminology here.


Re-reading your previous posts, the only definition which you've presented so far appears to be "caught up". And while some have defined it as ~grouping together~ without a heavenly destination, (which I perceive you will present), I will wait to see if indeed this is your intent.

And if I might suggest, not all posts must be responded to. If you have a "lesson", and other posters divert your theme, simply ignore those posts and continue with your focus. -- In naval parlance, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".*

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut
 

TWC

New Member
Dec 1, 2008
141
4
0
40
And I'll I'm asking for TWC is that we do it in the spirit of "love" TWC. Do we have a deal?
thekingdomkeys
Please answer the question. Where in the Bible does it say that the church is going to be raptured before the tribulation?
 

Lively Stone

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
854
59
0
Ontario, Canada
When Christ returns, He will be returning from a wedding...

Luke 12:35-38
[sup]35[/sup] “Be dressed for service and keep your lamps burning, [sup]36[/sup] as though you were waiting for your master to return from the wedding feast. Then you will be ready to open the door and let him in the moment he arrives and knocks. [sup]37[/sup] The servants who are ready and waiting for his return will be rewarded. I tell you the truth, he himself will seat them, put on an apron, and serve them as they sit and eat! [sup]38[/sup] He may come in the middle of the night or just before dawn. But whenever he comes, he will reward the servants who are ready.



In Revelation 19:7-8, we read about the marriage itself. The marriage supper takes place before the marriage...

[sup]7[/sup] Let us be glad and rejoice,
and let us give honor to him.
For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb,
and his bride has prepared herself.
[sup]8[/sup] She has been given the finest of pure white linen to wear.”
For the fine linen represents the good deeds of God’s holy people.


According to Jewish custom, the marriage contract, which would often include a dowry, is drawn up first. The contract parallels the act of faith we use when we trust Jesus to be our Savior. The dowry is Jesus' life, which was used to purchase us. At the time of the wedding, the groom arrives at the bride's house unannounced. She comes out to meet him, and then he takes her to his father's house.

This scenario of old demonstrates the pre-Tribulational events we can expect. Jesus, the Groom, comes down from heaven and calls up the Church, His Bride. After meeting in the air, He and His Bride return to His Father's house, heaven, where a place has been prepared. The marriage supper itself will take place there, while down here on earth the final events of the tribulation will be playing out. According to Jewish tradition, after the marriage supper, the bride and groom are presented to the world as man and wife. This corresponds to the time when Jesus returns to earth accompanied by an army "clothed in fine linen, white and clean" (Rev 19:14).
 

TWC

New Member
Dec 1, 2008
141
4
0
40
This scenario of old demonstrates the pre-Tribulational events we can expect. Jesus, the Groom, comes down from heaven and calls up the Church, His Bride. After meeting in the air, He and His Bride return to His Father's house, heaven, where a place has been prepared. The marriage supper itself will take place there, while down here on earth the final events of the tribulation will be playing out. According to Jewish tradition, after the marriage supper, the bride and groom are presented to the world as man and wife. This corresponds to the time when Jesus returns to earth accompanied by an army "clothed in fine linen, white and clean" (Rev 19:14).
Nothing in the text states that any of these events take place prior to the tribulation. Again, where does it actually say that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation?

Then, there are a few other gaping holes in the doctrine that you may want to address.

1 Thessalonians 4:13:17
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Hole #1: We who are alive, who are left...
We? He's addressing this to a church, including himself with it (hence the usage of "we" instead of "you"). If Paul had been teaching a pretribulation rapture, then he'd have no reason to say this as they all would've been taken in the rapture.

Hole #2 ...will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
Those who have fallen asleep are the dead in Christ Paul clearly states this in his letter. There must be a resurrection before there can be a rapture. Here's the problem.

John 6:39-40
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The last day means that there are no more days after it.

This is also problematic:

Revelation 20:4-6
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

If the rapture, and thus the resurrection that must precede it, is to occur prior to the tribulation, then everything involving the mark of the beast must also occur prior to the tribulation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the first resurrection, would it?

Hole #3
2 Thessalonians 2:
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

If Paul had been teaching the pretribulation rapture, he certainly would've mentioned it here. Instead, he tells them to watch first for the rebellion and the revealing of the man of lawlessness. He clearly was not teaching this doctrine.


Also, because I know it'll come up in the discussion again...

1 Peter 1:1

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Romans 11
What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened.

Scripture tells us who the elect are.

Matthew 24:22
If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

The doctrine says that the elect, as defined by the Bible, aren't going to be here. I find it utterly inconceivable that someone who truly belongs to God would take man's word over God's word.

Matthew 24:24
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

If possible...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PropphecyStudent

PropphecyStudent

New Member
Jan 6, 2012
139
0
0
...
This is also problematic:

Revelation 20:4-6
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

If the rapture, and thus the resurrection that must precede it, is to occur prior to the tribulation, then everything involving the mark of the beast must also occur prior to the tribulation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the first resurrection, would it?
...


Hi TWC,

You are correct in that if the plain text defines the FIRST resurrection as occurring at the beginning of the New Millennium, then there is no prospect for a tribulation era resurrection of the dead and the rapture of the saints. That is unless the SECOND is FIRST, and the FIRST is SECOND. :rolleyes:

Secondly, the verse 18 text also confirms the full spectrum of life on earth where the ~rapture~ occurs at the end of that age:

[sup]18[/sup] Therefore comfort one another with these words.


For what fighter, having completed half the fight, is comforted by being ahead in points? However, if the points are all tallied (as I would propose is provided in this text), then the fighter can take comfort.


So although some might mistake my observations that there is no tribulation era rapture, that there is no rapture at all, -- this would be far from the truth. For when the armies march across the face of the earth and are destroyed by Jesus, the dead are raised, and those who are alive and remain on earth shall be caught up to be together with the Lord forever in the air, -- in the New Jerusalem.

Else, how are these to ascend, by Space Shuttle?
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, David.

I am a new member of this forum and I know that you guys have created quite a few threads on the subject of the "Rapture" (being "caught up" to God), but I would like to start a new thread on the "Rapture" done in a little bit different fashion. I am hoping that we can dive into the subject matter with prayer and open-mindedness to such a degree that we can have a civil discourse and ultimately study to show ourselves approved and come to an overall consensus on the subject. I believe it is possible for Christians to learn the answers to all of the doctrines of the Bible, if we trust in the Lord, study to show ourselves approved and pray for answers to all of the questions put before us. Is it God's desire for us to know His Word and to know truth, or would He prefer that we remain ignorant of these things? Do you guys agree with this assessment? After all, there are only about 60 or 65 major doctrines in the Bible, so why should we believe that it is impossible for God to enable us to learn 60 things in our lifetime? I believe there is evidence to support (subject matter for a future thread?) that we are living in the last days, and in the time when God promised a Great Christian Revival to sweep the land. A time when it is prophesied that we will do greater things than Jesus did during his 3-year ministry! So if that day is just around the corner and God is going to equip us to do the Greater Things, shouldn't we also believe that God is going to lead us into all truth (the 60 to 65 Bible doctrines)? I hope we are in agreement on these things, but let's at least see if this system of study will work with one of the most controversial doctrines of the Bible - the "Rapture". For if most of us can come to an agreement on the end-times Bible doctrine, then we should be able to come to an agreement on all of the less controversial subject matters too, right?

How many of you would consider yourself to be biased? I would argue that the vast majority of us are biased (including myself) and that "bias" in of itself is not a bad thing ...it simply indicates that we are using our nuggets ...that we are thinking and making educated decisions based upon our thought process! Being biased isn't wrong, but being dogmatic is! If we (including myself) aren't willing to change our biases if the facts dictate change, then we become dogmatic in our beliefs and are no longer open-minded. My charge to everyone is simply this. Let's tackle this debate and all other debates keeping this principle in mind. Let's form biases on dogmas but be willing to change our biases on dogma if and when the facts dictate change until we all come into all truth on all of the scriptures. This is the only way that all of us Christians will finally be able to come into all truth! Is that fair enough?

At this point in time I don't even want to tell anyone my stance on when I believe the "rapture" will take place. I don't want to muddy up those waters at this time. But what I would like to do in this thread at this time, is to throw out some terms ...some Bible phrases to see if we all agree or disagree that these terms coincide with the "rapture". And if we agree, then I will add some more terms and so forth and so on, until we have a list of terms related to the timing of the rapture. Once we have a list of terms that the vast majority (those that aren't dogmatic) can agree with in regards to coinciding with the rapture, then we should be able to begin to paint a picture of when the rapture will actually take place. In other words, let's pursue this debate a little differently, let's begin this study with what we can agree upon rather than what we disagree upon! If we can't come to a consensus on the timeline on certain terms, then it makes no sense at all to me for us to enter into deeper waters, does it to you? Many/most threads start out as a fight on what we disagree about rather than what we agree about. How about we begin this debate with the opposite approach? This might all sound a little confusing now, but it will hopefully get easier in time, ha, ha.

OK, I'm going to throw out the first two terms, and let's debate whether or not they represent the time of the rapture or not. We don't have to agree that they represent the time of the rapture - for maybe they don't. We all need to prove one way or another whether these terms represent the time of the rapture or not. No matter which side you take, please use scriptures to support your bias (belief system).

OK, let's start with two Biblical phrases:

The Day of Christ

and

The Day of the Lord

Are either one or both of these Biblical days referring to the time of the Rapture? Yes or No? Use scriptures to support your stance.
David Kenderes
thekingdomkeys

P.S. Are we allowed to list our email address in these threads?

Sorry for jumping in late, but I post elsewhere as well and sometimes conversations get away from me.

There are only three locations in the B'rit Chadashah (the NT) that mention a "day of Christ": Philippians 1:6, 10; and 2:16. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 was mistranslated as such in the KJV, but the Greek of the passage is "hee heemera tou Kuriou," or "the day of the Lord." (BTW, I use a double "ee" to transliterate the Greek letter eeta and a single "e" for epsilon.) Thus, all three such locations are addressed to the same group of people, the "church" (ekkleesia) at Philippi, by the same author, Rav Sha'uwl (Paul). We can expand upon this by opening it up to longer phrases, such as "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:8 and "the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ" in Romans 2:16. Beyond these five, there are no others. Thus, from the analysis of these five passages, it seems clear to me that they refer to a "day" when Yeshua` haMashiach (Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Messiah) will be sitting in judgment on men.

I find, then, that there is little difference between the two terms, for the Day of the LORD is also so described as a day of judgment of men. The "day of Christ" is used, I believe, to remind the reader of Yeshua`s words in John 5:22-23:

John 5:22-23
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
KJV


Furthermore, that may not be a 24-hour day. It may be a 1000-year day! A day when the "Son never sets," the Son being described as...

Rev 1:13-16
...a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
NIV


I do not see a "Rapture" as an escape from God's Judgment in either term. I do, however, see the Rapture as a "snatching away" of His saints to deliver them in the air to Him associated with the beginning of the 1000 years, when He first arrives.

The events described in Rev. 6:12 and following through the fifth trumpet and ALL events associated with things falling from the sky! Yochanan is describing a collision of planetary objects! Some comet tail or asteroid fragments WILL - in God's timetable - be colliding with earth! Rev. 6:12 describes the gravitational shift from such an event as a "great earthquake." The "sun turning black" and "the whole moon turning blood red" describe their eclipse, either from the smoke associated with the "great earthquake" or from the eclipse of them from large parts of the planetary object colliding with us. Rev. 6:12 goes on to describe herald meteors and meteorites of the event in the "stars in the sky falling to the earth!" Rev. 8:7 describes further meteors and meteorites as "hail and fire mixed with blood" burning up a third of the trees and all green grass where they fall! Rev. 8:8 describes a particular meteorite striking the sea (probably the Mediterranean Sea) causing a third of the sea creatures to die and a third of the ships upon its waters to be destroyed. Rev. 8:10 describes a great star, sputtering like a torch, poisoning a third of the rivers and fresh water springs. It was named "Absinthos," the Greek word that is the root of the name of the liquor "absynthe," a green liquor that can be poisonous in large quantities, which is why it was outlawed and banned in the USA. Rev. 8:12 talks about "a third of the sun being struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark," and a third of the day and a third of the night was without light. Rev. 9:1 talks about a star falling from the sky to the earth and opening up a shaft to the "abussos," a pit with an "unsounded bottom."

Such a chain of events could be EXACTLY what Yeshua` was describing in Matt. 24:29! Not only does it describe the sun and the moon not giving their light, but also "the stars shall fall from the sky" and "the powers of the skies shall be shaken." That last phrase is often missed because people don't define "ouranos," or "ouranoi" its plural, as the "sky" or the "skies" anymore. They've got it in their heads that "heaven" is "God's abode." But, the "hai dunameis toon ouranoon saleutheesontai," or "the powers of the skies shall be shaken" are "the WEATHER PATTERNS of the skies being disrupted!" I believe this IS EXACTLY what Yeshua` was describing!

I believe, too, that this is the beginning of God's judgment upon men on the earth. As such, these events lead into the Day of the LORD, for it is AFTER these events that Yeshua` said,

Matthew 24:30-31
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
KJV


Hope this is helpful.
 

thekingdomkeys

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
39
3
0
Definition of the “Rapture”:
I believe in the traditional meaning of the word “rapture”, which represents a pre, mid, or post tribulation event (being “caught up”) rather than a timeframe (pre-tribulation rapture) like you guys believe. Thus, I not am able to state that the “rapture” is a false doctrine, are you with me here so far Veteran? For it can’t represent a false doctrine, if the word merely denotes when (pre, mid, post) the event will occur, rather than exclusively representing a fixed pre-tribulation rapture as you guys claim.

If one does a Google search on the Internet on the phrase “post tribulation rapture” 81 pages of webpages comes up. That’s a lot of pages for a nonevent isn’t it Veteran? Wikipedia even devotes a webpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Tribulation_Rapture) to this topic/event/doctrine. There are tons of books written about the “post tribulation rapture” topic/event/doctrine. Even most of the “pre-tribulation rapture” books mention the “post tribulation rapture” camp in their writings!

How about an online dictionary (see below)? All of the online dictionaries state the “rapture” as a doctrine! Not one of them claim the “rapture” to be a “false doctrine”. And not only that, the example listed below actually states the “rapture” will take place at the time of Christ’s return to earth (the Second Coming)! So excuse me Veteran, if I disagree with 3 or 4 guys (from this forum) definition of what the “rapture” is! What gives you guys the right?
rap·ture
   [rap-cher] noun, verb -tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1.
ecstatic joy or delight; joyful ecstasy.
2.
Often, raptures. an utterance or expression of ecstatic delight.
3.
the carrying of a person to another place or sphere of existence.
4.
the Rapture, Theology . the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth.

I don’t know what else I can say to defend my position here Veteran, I believe that the preponderance of evidence is on my side on what the definition of the “rapture” is. I have cited eschatology books, Wikipedia, 81 website pages and even online dictionaries …what else can I say? I believe that you guys are wrong for trying to change the traditional meaning of the word “rapture” and have no justification for doing such a thing! And this is my thread, not yours Veteran, and I think I have the right to use the word “rapture” under it’s traditional definition, over some new definition that you guys are trying to establish! If you want to discuss the doctrine of the “caught up” without using the word “rapture” start your own thread! And if I participate in your thread, I will honor your definition of the word over the dictionaries definition of the word, ha, ha (how silly!).

But having said all of that, the “rapture” is a non-Biblical word (as you guys continually point out, ha, ha) so neither side can use scripture to support/prove their stances. So because of that, I still contend that it is silly to even continue the debate over the meaning of the word “rapture”. And besides all of that, it is even a moot issue, since I have repeatedly stated to you Veteran, that I am willing to stop using the term “rapture” (under one condition) in this thread for the phrase “caught up” or the word “gathering” if that will make you happy Veteran. I want you to be happy Veteran, ha, ha. Don’t you want to be happy? Why don’t we all agree to disagree on this one Veteran and move on? Fair enough?

False Accusations” and “Presumptions:
Thekingdomkeys: On the subject of “false accusations”, “presumptions” and …. let me start off by giving you kudos and credit for an excellent (civil discourse in Christ’s love) first posting in this thread, when discussing the meaning of the phrases “Day of Christ” and “Day of the Lord” (directly below):

Veteran: “The "day of Christ" phrase occurs 3 times in the New Testament (Philippians 1:10; 2:16, and 2 Thess.2:2). In all 3 cases it's about Christ's second coming and Millennium reign.

In the 2 Thess.2:2 example, the Greek word rendered "Christ" is actually the word 'kurios', which means 'lord'. In all 3 cases it is pointing to the event of the "day of the Lord" Paul and Peter preached in reference to the Old Testament prophets.

The "day of the Lord" phrase occurs 5 times in the New Testament, and is referring to events to occur with Christ's second coming and Millennium reign. It is in reference to the OT Scripture "day of the LORD" (KJV).

Thus, we are to go back into the Old Testament prophets to understand more of the details of the events to occur on the day of Christ's return and His Millennium reign, in order to more fully understand what Paul and Peter were talking about, for that's where they were pulling from.”

Thekingdomkeys: Your first post (directly above) was excellent Veteran!!! You proved you could debate in Christ’s love under civil discourse! You stated your position on the first 2 terms (“Day of Christ” and “Day of the Lord”), that you believed that both days represented the same “day” and the same “event” …the time of Jesus’ Second Coming. If your posts would have remained civil like your first one, we would not be having this discussion right now! But unfortunately, things changed after your first posting.

OK Veteran let me cite some of your “false accusations”, “presumptions” and …. and let’s let the folks of this forum be our judges. Fair enough? Additionally look at your “tone” of delivery and the disparaging verbiage …was it delivered in love? Where’s the love Veteran, where’s the love?

False Accusations:
Veteran: “Where have I called you names, or made false accusations?”

Thekingdomkeys: I’m glad that you have asked, shall we begin?

Thekingdomkeys: “what I would like to do in this thread at this time, is to throw out some terms ...some Bible phrases to see if we all agree or disagree that these terms coincide with the "rapture". And if we agree, then I will add some more terms and so forth and so on, until we have a list of terms related to the timing of the rapture.” (quotation from my first posting in this thread)
“OK, I'm going to throw out the first two terms …the Day of Christ and the Day of the Lord” (quotation from my first posting in this thread)


“Let's see if we can begin to paint a picture of the timing of the "rapture" through these “Day of Christ” / “Day of the Lord” verses. Most of the pre-trib rapture folks believe there are 2 “Days”, the first for the ‘rapture’ and the second for ‘Christ’s Second Coming’. Many of these people claim that the rapture is the “Day of Christ” and the Second Coming (after the tribulation) is the “Day of the Lord”. It is our job as Bible students, to determine if this is true or false.”

Veteran: “Wait just a minute. No one can be just in pulling out a couple of phrases from God's Word and try to isolate them from the rest

Thekingdomkeys: Hello Veteran, I am not trying to "pull out a couple of phrases from God's Word and try to isolate them from the rest" as you have stated.

Veteran:Sure you did. No sense in denying in now, everyone seeing this thread has seen you already try to do just that.

Thekingdomkeys: “I attempted to tell everyone that this (these first 2 phrases) would just be the start of this study in this thread. I said (in so many words) that we would glean as much as we could out of those 2 phrases and then add new phrases to the mix, didn’t I? So I object to you stating that I am limiting this study to 2 phrases. I was simply giving time for others to chime in on the first 2 phrases of this study before I added additional phrases.”

Veteran:As if trying to 'create' an unfounded distinction between those two phrases wasn't enough to show you're not really interested in Biblically covering the idea of a rapture? Really, who you trying to fool?” “Still... you're trying to deny your intent to isolate those two phrases? How could we as Christian brethren carry on a just Biblical discussion of the rapture subject under such a false pretense?

Thekingdomkeys: Below you seem to be implying (accusing me) that I am a “false prophet” and a “deceiver” based on your definition of the word “rapture” and your presumption of what you believe my stance is on the doctrine of the “rapture”. This name calling has got to stop!

Veteran:That Matt.24 example is never going to be enough for the false prophets who intend to falsify His Word in order to deceive.

Thekingdomkeys: “I would be careful on who you are calling "false prophets" Veteran. If other Christians in this forum (or elsewhere) differ from your understanding of this doctrine and believe the opposite viewpoint that does not make them a "false prophet".”

Veteran:That I am... very careful of. I don't throw it out unless I really... mean it, just so you know. Those behind the Pre-trib doctrines are indeed... false prophets. Want me to say that again for you?

Being Presumptuous:
Thekingdomkeys: “Hello Veteran, I am not trying to "pull out a couple of phrases from God's Word and try to isolate them from the rest" as you have stated.” Below you presume that “everyone seeing this thread” is in agreement with you!

Veteran: “Sure you did. No sense in denying in now, everyone seeing this thread has seen you already try to do just that.

Thekingdomkeys: “At this point in time I don't even want to tell anyone my stance on when I believe the "rapture" will take place. I don't want to muddy up those waters at this time.” (quotation from my very first posting in this thread)

Veteran:And there's one Scripture you forgot... Rev 16:12-17”
Thekingdomkeys: Again you were being presumptuous, since I never stated that I was giving you and all inclusive list of the word “thief”. In fact I stated just the opposite, that I have added the next phrase and you guys can now begin to introduce other “thief” passages to the mix:

Thekingdomkeys: “I have also added the next phrase (“thief”) to our painted picture as well. At this time, we can now introduce other "thief" passages to the mix, as long as they are referring to the time of the "Day" of His Coming.”

Thekingdomkeys: Below you are presuming that you know what Biblical stance I take on the doctrine of the “rapture”. You believe that I believe in a “pre-tribulation rapture” and you might be correct, but you are being presumptuous, since I have yet to state my stance on this particular doctrine!

Veteran:All those Scriptures agree on the same one-time event of Christ's return, and the gathering of His saints. It's like I said in my first post here. Christ coming "as a thief" is the same time as "the day of the Lord" events.”

Why does our Lord Jesus given that warning of His coming "as a thief" again in between those 6th and 7th vials? Simple. Because His coming and gathering of His Church still on earth at that 6th vial timing has not happened yet! In other words, no rapture yet, not even by the time of the 6th vial.

Thekingdomkeys: More presumptions below Veteran. Where have I stated one way or another that I thought that Matthew 24:29-31 isn’t enough to determine theBiblical order of His coming”? Again, this is my thread Veteran (not yours) and I should be given the liberty to decide how I want to attack the study of this doctrine!

Veteran:But just HOW MANY Scriptures proofs does one need to grasp the true Biblical order of His coming and our gathering? Why wouldn't the Matthew 24:29-31 verses be enough for a believer on Christ Jesus, since they are direct statements by our Lord Jesus Himself?

Thekingdomkeys: More presumptions below without any evidence to back them up:

Veteran:You're slowly revealing to us just what persuasion your are of, and it does not appear to be Christ's coming and our gathering after the tribulation He directly stated in Matt.24:29-31!

Veteran: “Who cares if folks call it the Rapture?" "Those who stand in God's Holy Writ care, which should include yourself if you claim to have believed on Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Do you claim Christ Jesus as The Saviour, and your Saviour? If so, then why wouldn't you want to heed what He said in Matt.24:29-31 about the order of His coming and our gathering to Him instead of trying to play off of some fake semantics idea?

Ground Rules:
Veteran: “What ground rules, rules according to what you set? Why should anyone here agree to that, since it could easily serve as a method to limit what the Scriptures state?”

Thekingdomkeys: That we agree to begin to operate this debate in the Spirit of Christ’s love (civil discourse) and drop the accusations, name calling and presumptions. In exchange, I will agree to stop using the terms “rapture” and “word study” in this debate. That we agree to allow me to walk through this study step by step, term by term, until we are able to paint a full picture of this endtime doctrine. All Biblical words and phrases will be introduced in due time. All scriptures pertaining to this doctrine will be discussed and all questions will be answered. Is that fair enough Veteran?

False Prophets and False Teachers:
Veteran: “the idea of a false prophet involves the idea of teaching too? Yes. The Greek even means a 'spurious teacher'. Might want to look up John 10 also where our Lord Jesus called those who are not real shepherds that care not about the sheep preach instead for money as a 'hireling'. The word hireling is about a wage-worker used in the preaching for money sense by Christ Jesus Himself.”

2 Pet 2:1-3
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (KJV)

“So, the idea of a false prophet involves the idea of teaching too? Yes. The Greek even means a 'spurious teacher'. Might want to look up John 10 also where our Lord Jesus called those who are not real shepherds that care not about the sheep preach instead for money as a 'hireling'. The word hireling is about a wage-worker used in the preaching for money sense by Christ Jesus Himself.”

Thekingdomkeys: I stand down on this one Veteran, you have made your point with the passage above …I stand corrected. It does seem to state that the idea of “false prophet” also encompasses “false teachers” Good show!

Miscellaneous Stuff:
Veteran: “To get multiple quotes, all you do is hit the "Quote" button at the bottom of one's post, all the person's quotes are in the small text entry box at the bottom. Where you want to split ideas in one's post, use the"

Thekingdomkeys: Thanks for trying to help me out with my multiple quote problem (operator error, ha, ha), but as you can see above, the last part of your solution somehow got cut off? The split part of the multiple quotes is what I haven’t been able to figure out yet. But I think I might be able to figure it out. I shouldn’t click on the multiple quote button, but rather just click on the single quote button and then copy and paste some of the HTML characters to create the split quotes that you often use. I’ll have to play with it, but I’m always afraid that I will screw up my posting.

Veteran: “I already dissected them per Scripture, which you refused commenting.”

Thekingdomkeys: I have told you that I have no desire to get into this deep study (in any fashion, yours or mine) until we have agreed on and established the ground rules.

Bottomline:
Thekingdomkeys: Listen Veteran, I am not out to get you and I am pretty confident that you are not out to get me either. I really want to begin my deep study on this doctrine with all of you guys. All that I am asking is that we tone down our jargon and have a civil discourse on the topic. And all that I am asking is that you give me a little time and patience to paint a picture on this doctrine. I promise that I will not shirk any questions addressed to me and that I will answer all questions and look at all scriptures in due time. I simply desire to step through this doctrine one word/phrase at a time. Is that fair enough?
thekingdomkeys
 

thekingdomkeys

New Member
Jan 15, 2012
39
3
0
Ummmmm, the "delimma" was all the attacks in your Topic. LOL It was not about your posts! :)


Re-reading your previous posts, the only definition which you've presented so far appears to be "caught up". And while some have defined it as ~grouping together~ without a heavenly destination, (which I perceive you will present), I will wait to see if indeed this is your intent.

And if I might suggest, not all posts must be responded to. If you have a "lesson", and other posters divert your theme, simply ignore those posts and continue with your focus. -- In naval parlance, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".*

* http://en.wikipedia..../David_Farragut

Thanks for the nice and fair posting here PropphecyStudent.
"Ummmmm, the "delimma" was all the attacks in your Topic. LOL It was not about your posts!" are you in agreement with me that we should discuss all the scriptures concerning the doctrine of the "caught up" and Christ's "Second Coming" in a civil manor, no matter what bias we might currently have?

"And if I might suggest, not all posts must be responded to. If you have a "lesson", and other posters divert your theme, simply ignore those posts and continue with your focus. -- In naval parlance, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" I agree that not all postings require a response, but I try to respond to everyone (if halfway pertenent to the topic) since I originated the thread. I especially think it is important to respond to a post if the person that wrote the post ask why the question was answered.

"Re-reading your previous posts, the only definition which you've presented so far appears to be "caught up". And while some have defined it as ~grouping together~ without a heavenly destination, (which I perceive you will present), I will wait to see if indeed this is your intent." Thanks again for waiting until I spell out my intent (hopefully soon).

Once Veteran and I can come to some kind of agreement on the "ground rules" I am ready and willing to dive into this thing!
thekingdomkeys

Please answer the question. Where in the Bible does it say that the church is going to be raptured before the tribulation?

Hello TWC, first, this is another example of being presumptuous ...presuming that I believe that the "rapture" will occur before the tribulation. I have yet to state my belief one way or another yet. Secondly I have stated that I will begin this study until some agreed upon ground rules are established.
thekingdomkeys