Hi veteran,
JLB has expressed the desire to debate with me over the rapture of the church.
He began with wanting to establish an hermaneutic rule based on a passage in John. But then he did not want to discuss that. He asked me whether I agreed that his three passages all described the same event. I've said from the beginning that based on what is said in the Olivette Discourse, they cannot be the same event. What is not "straight" about that???
But then, it seems you also understand I'm giving a clear answer, since you've responded more directly to my assertions than JLB has.
As it turns out, it doesn't seem that he actually wants to discuss what I've posted on the rapture after all. Even after acknowledging my answer, he simply asks the same question over again, as if I have not answered.
Now you are asking me the same question, again, as if I have not answered. Yet this was in my very first post in this thread.
I'd like hear a straight answer to JLB's question to you. It's a valid question, and shouldn't move you from your current positoin to answer it. A simple "Yes, there are trumpets..." is not a valid answer to it.
OK, from the top . . . "Yes there are trumpets" was not my answer. This was my answer, immediately following:
There are exclusionary facts given in Scripture that prohibit the gathering in Matthew 24:31 from being the rapture.
So while there are similarities in what is said, and what will happen, they cannot be the same thing. You cannot gather all the saved, and then turn around and gather all the saved, that are comingled with the unsaved.
Why is this not being acknowledged? How are we to have a discussion?
What are "exclusionary facts"? Do you mean 'secrets' that we as believers on Christ Jesus cannot know, like a 'private' intepretation of God's Word?
When I say "exclusionary facts", I am referring to facts which prohibit the conclusions being presented. John leaves the room when George enters the room. If that is true, then you cannot conclude that George and John are in the room at the same time. The facts exclude it.
"Secrets" that we can't know? Then how would I know them? Frankly, this is beginning to sound a bit perjorative. But I'll assume you are simply asking the question.
There's not any idea in the Matt.24 chapter that prohibits such an idea. The Matt.24:29-31 Scripture involves all of Christ's Church at His coming, and it is the Greek 'harpazo' ("caught up") event which Apostle Paul taught.
I will refer to my previous assertion:
I think that the Olivette Discourse is meant to be taken exactly as stated, that Jesus will return, and will sit upon His throne, and that certain items of business will be transacted. If that is true, then the gathering of the elect in Matt. 24:31 cannot include the gentiles, since the gentiles are gathered in Matt. 25:32. And therefore, neither of these can be the "we who remain" of I Thess 4, since "we who remain" is all-inclusive, while neither gathering in Matt. 24-25 is. Neither of these can be the catching up of I Thess. 4.
Jesus appears and gathers the chosen.
Jesus sits upon His throne.
Jesus gathers the nations, and separated the righteous from the wicked.
In the Olivette discourse, there are two gatherings. Both groups contain saved. The second group also contains unsaved.
In Paul's harpazo, "we who are alive and remain" are caught away.
The first gathering is not "we who are alive and remain", because some remain afterward, to be gathered among the nations.
The second gathering is not the gathering of those "in Christ", it is a mixed group of both saved and unsaved.
We have further internal evidence also.
The nations are divided according to how they treated "Jesus' brothers". This can only be an outside group, otherwise, it becomes circular, that they be separated by comparing them to themselves. That is illogical.
We are given an outside group by whom they are separated, the "chosen", who were already gathered.
Therefore, this supports the otherwise logical conclusion that the first gathering, the chosen, is Israel, while the second gathering, the nations, are just that. This is further supported by passages in Ezekiel and Joel, among others.
Can't be the same event because of what, why? Because of a tradition of men that says it cannot be? Apostle Paul already covered the event of Christ gathering two groups of His saints into one group per 1 Thess.4. He specifically taught that the saints still alive on earth at Christ's coming will be "caught up" and joined with the "asleep" saints which Christ brings with Him. How can the unsaved prevent that from happenning? Is there anywhere... written in God's Word that declares the unsaved could prevent that gathering event? No; of course not. Sorry man; so far your argument doesn't hold a bit of water.
veteran, have I said anything whatsoever about traditions? Why does this enter the discussion? That is not a rhetorical question, though I do not really expect it to be truly answered. I think I know the answer.
Again, the fact that some of the righteous are gathered together as part of the nations means that not all the righteous were gathered in Matt. 24:31. Do you have an actual response that specific point? Perhaps you would like to argue that the Matt. 25:32 gathering is the great white throne judgment. Some people try to make that case. That would allow the 24:31 gathering to stand alone, eliminating my current objection. The problem with that view, however, is that the timing words put them together in the same event sequence. Jesus appears in the sky, He gathers the chosen, He sits upon His throne, and the nations are gathered and separated.
Ever heard of Hyper-Dispensationalism? It treats Israel as separate from Gentile believers, thinking that only Paul's Epistles are for the Church, the rest of Scripture (like Matt.24) being only for Israel. That kind of idea was never held by the early Church, and wasn't even an idea introduced by anyone in the Church until the 1800's, and it was linked with the Pre-trib secret rapture theory of that era.
Yes I have. Bullinger, I believe, is often held up as an example.
Of course, there are dispensational distinctions in Scripture. We know that they offered animal sacrifice in the OT times. Now we do not. Jesus was the perfect, once-for-all sacrifice.
But I'm not making a dispensational argument. I'm drawing conclusions solely from the exact wording of two passages within the Olivette Discourse, when compared to the exact wording of I Thess 4. And no one seems to want to direct discuss this. Deny it, yes, discuss it, no.
Now, the ticker is showing me new posts added as I've been writing this one. I am hoping for more of a discussion of my assertions.
veteran, so far you've associated me with obfuscation, "secret" knowledge, holding to traditions, and hyper-dispensationalism. Each of these can be easily seen as ad hominem arguments, arguing against the person, not the assertions. That is of course a logical fallacy, and further, I said at the beginning, I'm not interested in this becoming personal.
What you have not done is to address how it is that you can have a catching up of all Christians on the earth at that time, occuring in a single moment of time, that is also described as two separate gatherings with different descriptions, or, otherwise, where do the "sheep" come from in the sheep/goats judgment?
Now, whether this is to become "personal" or not, I think I'll know very quickly. I'm hoping we can simply discuss the views themselves.
Love in Christ,
Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi JLB,
On to yet another passage . . .
I have answered your questions, you yet to respond to my assertions, which you said you wanted to discuss. It's getting a little lopsided here. But I think I understand.
But I'm going to ask that you respond to my post #101:
But before you ask yet again, I don't know how I can be more specific. The gathering in Matt. 24:31 CANNOT be the catching up in I Thess 4, because the catching up in I Thess 4 is all inclusive, while the gathering in Matt. 24:31 is only Jews, and we know this because the gentiles are gathered in Matt. 25:32, as a mixed group, saved and unsaved. So then, neither can be the all inclusive group of I Thess. 4. But alas, I repeat myself.
How is it that you have two different gathering containing saved people in the Olivette Discourse, both happening when Jesus comes, yet both different, while at the same time, I Thess 4 describes a single gathering of those "in Christ". You assert these are the same gathering. How do you account for the two gatherings in Matthew?
Let's address this point before we procede. After all, this was my original post that you said you wanted to debate. So let's debate it, OK?
----------------------------------------------------
hi veteran,
Since I'm not trying to apply the "sheep" to Israel", your accusation that I am being "ludicrous" is, I think, misplaced.
However, this is just the sort of perjorative I have no interest in.
"No, you're wrong, it's just ridiculous!" Just not the sort of discussion I'm here for.
Blessings!!
Love in Christ,
Mark
