Get Rapture Ready or will you be be left Behind?

[Enoch111]

I'm sorry, but none of these verses divorce the Rapture with the Second Coming.

What you have done after that is made a mishmash of the Scriptures, just because the word *coming* happens to be there.

 

[brakelite]

Thanks for your input but I disagree with the SDA view on prophetic timing.

I am SDA, and sorry, but there nothing in his post that aligns with SDA eschatology. Maybe he has a couple of details that match up with further explanation, but in that post as presented, nuh.

 

[Naomi25]

What you have done after that is made a mishmash of the Scriptures, just because the word *coming* happens to be there.

You'd like to think that. But, if you can truly could support it, I invite you to show how they are not connected.

 

[Jay Ross]

Thanks for your input but I disagree with the SDA view on prophetic timing.

​

I am SDA, and sorry, but there nothing in his post that aligns with SDA eschatology. Maybe he has a couple of details that match up with further explanation, but in that post as presented, nuh.

Trekson, your response leaves me asking what you were disagreeing with in my post. As breakelite responded, what I had posted does not line up with SDA eschatology.

Perhaps it would be best if you provided a more detailed response as to your objection to my response with evidence to show where my post was missing the mark.

Shalom

 

[Stranger]

Ah, there's that strawman. Stuff it nice and full now, it won't burn as bright as you want it to unless you do.

Ok. Sock it to me. Give me the scriptures that prove your Rapture verses are a different event than the second coming.
While we're at it, how about you give me the verses that show your nice, literal interpretation for inserting a gap. If you're going to accuse me of "spiritualizing" away Jesus himself, I'd like to see some darn good proof based on your literal hermeneutic for inserting something the text doesn't state. So let's have it.

The point is not the 'gap'. The point is your turning to 'symbolism' to interpret the one week in (Dan. 9:27) when the 69 weeks were literal weeks of years culminating in the death of Christ.

There are symbols in the Bible. But the Bible is not interpreted symbolically which is what you did with the one week, when there is every reason to understand it as a literal 7 years. Had the 7 years been symbolic, then fine, it can be interpreted symbolically.

As I said, if you can do that, then you can symbolize anything. Is the 69 weeks symbolic also?

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

no matter how much you all argue, no matter how much you all want to boast" hey I figured God out" it wont matter, Jesus will come when He is good and ready, all we need to know is time is shirt, get with Him, like Noah who got in the ark, than God closed the door, and so it will be, if you are not in Christ than you will be let without, and being in Christ has nothing to do with being in church.

 

[Enoch111]

You'd like to think that. But, if you can truly could support it, I invite you to show how they are not connected.

The question is whether you would believe it or not? Whether you would be prepared to set aside all your pre-conceived ideas and take the Scriptures for what they say?

 

[Trekson]

I am SDA, and sorry, but there nothing in his post that aligns with SDA eschatology. Maybe he has a couple of details that match up with further explanation, but in that post as presented, nuh.

This is SDA thinking from experience..."A little correction, Jesus did not come at Armageddon to take back his earthly Kingdom, that was given to Him when he returned after dealing with the judgement of the Kings of the earth at Armageddon at the end of their 2,300 years of trampling the sanctuary of God." The false idea that there is a year for a day principle identifies it to me as SDA.

Jay Ross, your post is in the past tense as if all these things have happened, they have not and there is no prophetic 2300 years in the bible.

 

[Naomi25]

The point is not the 'gap'. The point is your turning to 'symbolism' to interpret the one week in (Dan. 9:27) when the 69 weeks were literal weeks of years culminating in the death of Christ.

There are symbols in the Bible. But the Bible is not interpreted symbolically which is what you did with the one week, when there is every reason to understand it as a literal 7 years. Had the 7 years been symbolic, then fine, it can be interpreted symbolically.

As I said, if you can do that, then you can symbolize anything. Is the 69 weeks symbolic also?

Stranger

The point, apparently, is your ability to dodge wildly when backed into a corner your own inconsistancies have placed you in.
You accused me of not holding to a biblical interpretation of scripture. So I invited you to show me, biblically, how I was wrong. You dodged. I asked you how someone holding to a literal hermeneutic can place a gap in the text of Daniel's 70 weeks and instead of that you criticised me for interpreting some scripture symbolically... meaning, you've dodged again. I already know you think I'm illogical and wrong. The point I asked YOU to make was...prove me wrong. Prove to me that your hermeneutic can stand up under the weight YOU are putting on it. Which, yes, makes the point "the gap". You cannot slag off against people for not being literal, but then stick a dirty great 2000 year gap in the text that's not there.
So, I'd say, put up your proof, or lay off on the accusations.

 

[Naomi25]

The question is whether you would believe it or not? Whether you would be prepared to set aside all your pre-conceived ideas and take the Scriptures for what they say?

There is, of course, no guarantee that I am going to agree that the scriptures you post are going to mean what you think they mean. After all, I have just posted what I think they mean...but anything's possible, I am open. But here's the thing. IF you think Dispenationalism can truly stand up under the weight of scrunity, then you MUST do more than just post your opinion. You must present scripture, even if you think it will be picked at. You must stand confident in your interpretation of those scriptures and your ability to defend them. If you are not, then it is you who need to question your 'pre-conceived ideas', because clearly they are not 'all that'. But again...over and over, I have invited you and CoreIssue to post bible verses to support Rapture doctrines, and 98% of the time, you just give opinions. Opinions about your beliefs, and opinions of how very bad mine are. You are not, in no way, going to persuade anyone; me or others reading, of your biblical and solid foundation for your doctrine, if you don't step up and do the hard work of building your points on scripture.
Unless, of course, you're just here to argue...?

 

[Stranger]

The point, apparently, is your ability to dodge wildly when backed into a corner your own inconsistancies have placed you in.
You accused me of not holding to a biblical interpretation of scripture. So I invited you to show me, biblically, how I was wrong. You dodged. I asked you how someone holding to a literal hermeneutic can place a gap in the text of Daniel's 70 weeks and instead of that you criticised me for interpreting some scripture symbolically... meaning, you've dodged again. I already know you think I'm illogical and wrong. The point I asked YOU to make was...prove me wrong. Prove to me that your hermeneutic can stand up under the weight YOU are putting on it. Which, yes, makes the point "the gap". You cannot slag off against people for not being literal, but then stick a dirty great 2000 year gap in the text that's not there.
So, I'd say, put up your proof, or lay off on the accusations.

I haven't dodged anything. I asked you concerning the one week of Daniel. You say it is symbolic. I say how can it be symbolic when the 69 weeks are taken as literal? At which point you do not answer and instead want to shift the argument to the 'gap'. But the 'gap' is not in question at this time. Your interpretation of the one week of Daniel is. Which is why I asked you if you believe the 69 weeks are 'symbolical' also.

And of course you don't answer but instead want to whine about a gap. The only one playing dodgeball, is you.

So, I ask again, do you believe the 69 weeks of Daniel are symbolical also?

Stranger

 

[Naomi25]

I haven't dodged anything. I asked you concerning the one week of Daniel. You say it is symbolic. I say how can it be symbolic when the 69 weeks are taken as literal? At which point you do not answer and instead want to shift the argument to the 'gap'. But the 'gap' is not in question at this time. Your interpretation of the one week of Daniel is. Which is why I asked you if you believe the 69 weeks are 'symbolical' also.

And of course you don't answer but instead want to whine about a gap. The only one playing dodgeball, is you.

So, I ask again, do you believe the 69 weeks of Daniel are symbolical also?

Stranger

Not exactly how it went down. You asked me how I saw the 7th week, right enough (#189). And I answered honestly that I saw it as a symbolic number (#191). You didn't ask me to proved that by scripture though, you decided that my answer gave you leave to accuse me of spiritualizing away Jesus himself(#193). Nice.
My reply was that if you felt my 'figurative approach' was so very bad, how about you put up some of your very sturdy verses to shoot me down (#193)? And...that's where you started doing the "no you..." (#205, #211).

But fine...you want my biblical case for why I see the 70 weeks as symbolic? Sure, I'll play. But I fully expect you won't reciprocate.

The Dispensationalist view on Dan 9 depends on two facts, really. 1: 445-44bc is the only date in which a decree relative to rebuilding Jerusalem was issued. And 2: the 490 years is a chronologically precise period of time, and thus must span the period from the decree to the Messiah to the very day. If either or both these assertions are false, then Dispensational interpretation must be questioned. And this is not just Dispensational bashing, by the way, by going through these questions, we work through HOW we are to interpret this difficult passage, which ultimately leads to my point. It's just down the road and beyond what a single post can allow...

To start off with, we need to consider the context of the passage. Daniel is praying about the exile of his people. Jer 25:1-11 had predicted a 70 year exile for the Jewish nation, and in "the first year of Darius' reign" Daniel recognized that these 70 years were nearly at an end. So, he prays with great fervor to God, in supplication for his nations freedom and return to Jerusalem. His prayer has some urgency to it!
Gabriel's response in Dan 9:20-27 is to be seen as a response to this prayer, and as Vern Poythress says:
"The logical conclusion from this language is that the beginning point of the 70 weeks basically coincides with the end of Jeremiah’s 70 years. That is, it occurs in 538 b.c. or shortly thereafter. On the other hand, a beginning point in 444 b.c. would not really answer Daniel’s prayer. It would not be quick enough to satisfy Daniel’s urgency. And it would not be related to the basis of Daniel’s prayer in Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years."
We can receive confirmation of this thought when we look closer at when this prophecy might start. In the first year of his reign, Persian King Cyrus made a decree:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel'" -Ezra 1:2-3

Interestingly, we are told explicitly in 2 Chron 36:21-22 that the decree of Cyrus signaled the end of Jeremiah’s prophecy and the start of the restoration of Israel. This corresponds directly with Daniel’s supplication for the completion of Jeremiah’s prophecy, on the basis of which he utters his prayer (9:2).

In Dan. 9:25 the decree that inaugurates the 70 weeks is “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” and that is precisely what Isaiah prophesied that Cyrus would do:

"It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid'” (Isa. 44:28).

“I have aroused him [Cyrus] in righteousness, and I will make all his ways smooth; he will build my city, and will let my exiles go free, without any payment or reward,” says the Lord of hosts (Isa. 45:13).

To bring this all together: In 605 b.c. Jeremiah prophesied that Israel would be taken captive in Babylon for 70 years and that Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed. He also prophesied that at the end of this period Babylon would fall. In 539 b.c. Babylon fell to Cyrus of Persia. Consequently, in that very year, sensing the completion of Jeremiah’s prophecy, Daniel prays for the restoration of Jerusalem. Gabriel (as God’s messenger) responds to Daniel’s prayer with the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the beginning of which would be a decree to rebuild and restore the city. In 538 b.c. Cyrus issued just such a decree! The point, then, is this. The decree of Cyrus in 539-38 b.c. is both the conclusion of Jeremiah's prophecy of captivity (2 Chron 36:21-23) and the beginning of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy of restoration (Dan. 9:25).

Now, Dispensationalists often object and say that Cyrus' decree cannot be considered the beginning of the 70 weeks, because it only mentions the temple and not Jerusalem. But this argument cannot stand for several reasons. First, a temple may not function without people dwelling around it. The rebuilding of Jerusalem to some extent would have been a given, considering those who would have had to live there to build the temple, work in the temple and worship in the temple. Secondly, In Jewish culture, the land, Jerusalem and the temple were closely bound up together, and in many passages we see that (Jer 7:4, 29:10,14; Dan 9:2,16,18, 9:17). Third, the focus of the decree in Ezra 1:2-4 and 2 Chron. 36:23 is indeed the temple, but these passages may not give us the complete text of the decree. Ezra 6:3-5, an alternate report of the decree, contains details not mentioned in Ezra 1:2-4. When Josephus wrote of the decree he included direct reference to the city. Forth, we have already seen that Is 44:28 and 45:13 include a reference to rebuilding the city. Fith, numerous texts show that Jerusalem was partially habited by Nehemiah's time ( Hag. 1:4,9; Neh. 3:20,21,23,24,25,28,29; 7:3; Ezra 5:1; 6:9; 4:6). That the restoration wasn't completed by then isn't proof that it had not begun before then.

All this to say: there appears no biblical or historical proof to say that the beginning of the 70 weeks MUST be 445-44bc. In which case the Dispensational timeframe begins to wobble. This is but step one in the road to realising this and backing up my case. I would need another three posts equally as long. I'm not sure you'd read 'em, nor care. I'll certainly keep going if you want more proof that I'm not just twirling my mostache and hiding the bible away to make dubious claims at will. Plenty of bible verses to show how and why I am where I am.
Feel free to reciprocate.

 

[Stranger]

Naomi

That's because you did claim you believed the 70th week was to be interpreted symbolically. In other words you do not want to admit the 70th week is 7 literal years, so you turn to symbolism, in spite of the literal use of the 69 weeks.

So you have demonstrated that you disagree with the date 445-44 B.C. as to the beginning of the 70 weeks. So what date do you ascribe to it? For in the 69th week Messiah is cut off.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

The Rapture, biblically, is that event where Paul describes Christians as "meeting the Lord in the air". The "dead in Christ will rise first", then those "who are alive and left" shall also meet him in the air.

[/QUOTEThere, we shall all receive our new, resurrection bodies, as "the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable". Are you with me so far? Same event? Yes?
[/QUOTE]

1) no men do not receive their new bodies up "there".

Men are raised up out and off the earth in glorified bodies.

Men remaining on earth, with earthly eyes will not SEE a bunch of glorified bodies rising up to the clouds.

[/QUOTE]Where we differ is time, and direction. You think the Rapture must happen 7 years before the "end, end", and that those Raptured must continue up and spend those 7 years [/QUOTE]

Must? Will is more accurate. Christs Church all gathered together...The Wedding, Marriage, Feast, Mingling, visiting, much to celebrate.

in heaven.

In Heaven? Why are you talking about Heaven? No one said anything about Christs Church being raised up To Heaven.

Christs Church is resurrected and redeemed UP To the Clouds, the air. That is not Heaven.

1Thes 4
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:

I think

You have already given your own TWO incorrect thoughts pertaining to Christ redeeming His Church...

the bible only speaks of a single return,

And ? Why is that statement significant when speaking of Christ redeeming His Church?

It isn't!

Christ Jesus WAS ON Earth.
He left Earth and was lifted up to Heaven.
His Return is Him returning to Earth!

Does the Redemption of Christs Church mention anything about Christ "Returning to the earth"?

No, it doesn't.
Christ doesn't mention that.
Scripture doesn't mention that.
Those who are in Christs Church waiting for Christ to redeem them do not mention that....

Why did you? It is irrelevant and inapplicable information.

Christs Church are in the Clouds, In the Air with The Lord.

We can know the Lord descended from heaven TO the Clouds/air...
But the Clouds/air are not Earth...third that is not the Event of Jesus' second coming.

It IS the Event of Christ redeeming His Church unto Himself.

and thus after the 'meeting in the air' event, the consumation of all things will happen. In other words, Christ will judge everyone and remake the earth, and...yes, we go back down. I often chuckled because Dispensationalists complain "that's stupid! We'd just be yoyos, going up, and then back down!" But, in reality, some one is going to be a yoyo...is it better for it to be us, or Christ?
As for your 7 years...don't see it in scripture.

Well you have skipped a plethora of knowledge and information that occurs ... that applies to All of Gods creations...that God Himself Willed would all be addressed within a 7 year period...

Seems if if fail to know God Will or do not consider the enormity of God dealing with All of His creations .... 7 years might seem like a long time if you are only thinking of yourself...get your new body, God clean up the mess, and you yo-yoed back to earth.

Sort of skipped over consideration of All the Jews who love God, but do not believe in Jesus the Christ. Eh?

Think God doesn't have a Will for them...Gods Elect...during the 7 years?

Knowledge First...
then Understanding.

That's how it works,

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Trekson]

Not exactly how it went down. You asked me how I saw the 7th week, right enough (#189). And I answered honestly that I saw it as a symbolic number (#191). You didn't ask me to proved that by scripture though, you decided that my answer gave you leave to accuse me of spiritualizing away Jesus himself(#193). Nice.
My reply was that if you felt my 'figurative approach' was so very bad, how about you put up some of your very sturdy verses to shoot me down (#193)? And...that's where you started doing the "no you..." (#205, #211).

But fine...you want my biblical case for why I see the 70 weeks as symbolic? Sure, I'll play. But I fully expect you won't reciprocate.

The Dispensationalist view on Dan 9 depends on two facts, really. 1: 445-44bc is the only date in which a decree relative to rebuilding Jerusalem was issued. And 2: the 490 years is a chronologically precise period of time, and thus must span the period from the decree to the Messiah to the very day. If either or both these assertions are false, then Dispensational interpretation must be questioned. And this is not just Dispensational bashing, by the way, by going through these questions, we work through HOW we are to interpret this difficult passage, which ultimately leads to my point. It's just down the road and beyond what a single post can allow...

To start off with, we need to consider the context of the passage. Daniel is praying about the exile of his people. Jer 25:1-11 had predicted a 70 year exile for the Jewish nation, and in "the first year of Darius' reign" Daniel recognized that these 70 years were nearly at an end. So, he prays with great fervor to God, in supplication for his nations freedom and return to Jerusalem. His prayer has some urgency to it!
Gabriel's response in Dan 9:20-27 is to be seen as a response to this prayer, and as Vern Poythress says:
"The logical conclusion from this language is that the beginning point of the 70 weeks basically coincides with the end of Jeremiah’s 70 years. That is, it occurs in 538 b.c. or shortly thereafter. On the other hand, a beginning point in 444 b.c. would not really answer Daniel’s prayer. It would not be quick enough to satisfy Daniel’s urgency. And it would not be related to the basis of Daniel’s prayer in Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years."
We can receive confirmation of this thought when we look closer at when this prophecy might start. In the first year of his reign, Persian King Cyrus made a decree:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel'" -Ezra 1:2-3

Interestingly, we are told explicitly in 2 Chron 36:21-22 that the decree of Cyrus signaled the end of Jeremiah’s prophecy and the start of the restoration of Israel. This corresponds directly with Daniel’s supplication for the completion of Jeremiah’s prophecy, on the basis of which he utters his prayer (9:2).

In Dan. 9:25 the decree that inaugurates the 70 weeks is “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” and that is precisely what Isaiah prophesied that Cyrus would do:

"It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid'” (Isa. 44:28).

“I have aroused him [Cyrus] in righteousness, and I will make all his ways smooth; he will build my city, and will let my exiles go free, without any payment or reward,” says the Lord of hosts (Isa. 45:13).

To bring this all together: In 605 b.c. Jeremiah prophesied that Israel would be taken captive in Babylon for 70 years and that Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed. He also prophesied that at the end of this period Babylon would fall. In 539 b.c. Babylon fell to Cyrus of Persia. Consequently, in that very year, sensing the completion of Jeremiah’s prophecy, Daniel prays for the restoration of Jerusalem. Gabriel (as God’s messenger) responds to Daniel’s prayer with the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the beginning of which would be a decree to rebuild and restore the city. In 538 b.c. Cyrus issued just such a decree! The point, then, is this. The decree of Cyrus in 539-38 b.c. is both the conclusion of Jeremiah's prophecy of captivity (2 Chron 36:21-23) and the beginning of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy of restoration (Dan. 9:25).

Now, Dispensationalists often object and say that Cyrus' decree cannot be considered the beginning of the 70 weeks, because it only mentions the temple and not Jerusalem. But this argument cannot stand for several reasons. First, a temple may not function without people dwelling around it. The rebuilding of Jerusalem to some extent would have been a given, considering those who would have had to live there to build the temple, work in the temple and worship in the temple. Secondly, In Jewish culture, the land, Jerusalem and the temple were closely bound up together, and in many passages we see that (Jer 7:4, 29:10,14; Dan 9:2,16,18, 9:17). Third, the focus of the decree in Ezra 1:2-4 and 2 Chron. 36:23 is indeed the temple, but these passages may not give us the complete text of the decree. Ezra 6:3-5, an alternate report of the decree, contains details not mentioned in Ezra 1:2-4. When Josephus wrote of the decree he included direct reference to the city. Forth, we have already seen that Is 44:28 and 45:13 include a reference to rebuilding the city. Fith, numerous texts show that Jerusalem was partially habited by Nehemiah's time ( Hag. 1:4,9; Neh. 3:20,21,23,24,25,28,29; 7:3; Ezra 5:1; 6:9; 4:6). That the restoration wasn't completed by then isn't proof that it had not begun before then.

All this to say: there appears no biblical or historical proof to say that the beginning of the 70 weeks MUST be 445-44bc. In which case the Dispensational timeframe begins to wobble. This is but step one in the road to realising this and backing up my case. I would need another three posts equally as long. I'm not sure you'd read 'em, nor care. I'll certainly keep going if you want more proof that I'm not just twirling my mostache and hiding the bible away to make dubious claims at will. Plenty of bible verses to show how and why I am where I am.
Feel free to reciprocate.

Here is the math regarding the 70 weeks according to my sources. The decree occurred on March 4, 444BC Neh. 2:1-8, the 69 weeks = 483 yrs. which brings us to Mar. 29, 33AD. This takes us to the triumphal entry which is when Messiah comes as King, not at the start of His ministry 3 1/2 yrs. earlier as some claim. This fulfills the prophecy of Zech. 9:9 - "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." This is not symbolic, it has been proven mathematically. Here's more math: 69 weeks of 7 yrs. of 360 days = 173,880 days we arrive at it this way, 444bc to 33 ad = 476 years but the Roman calendar was changed around 45 bc so if you multiply 476 x 365.24219 it equals 173, 855 days. When you add the 25 days from Mar. 4 to March 29, it comes to the prophesied 483 yrs./173,880 days.

The purpose of the 70 weeks was six-fold. Dan. 9:24 - "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." The context of Daniel is what separates the 70th week from the other 69 which ended with Christ's crucifixion. Dan. 9:27 - "And he (the prince that shall come, the a/c from vs. 26) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: (This has never been done) and in the midst of the week (sometime in the context of, not the exact middle) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ( in the new temple/tabernacle that will be built prior to the still future 70th week) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (words in parenthesis mine). Only the two underlined can be considered as being fulfilled, so we know that there is still more to come.

 

[Naomi25]

1) no men do not receive their new bodies up "there".

Men are raised up out and off the earth in glorified bodies.

Men remaining on earth, with earthly eyes will not SEE a bunch of glorified bodies rising up to the clouds.

Scripture?


Where we differ is time, and direction. You think the Rapture must happen 7 years before the "end, end", and that those Raptured must continue up and spend those 7 years [/QUOTE]

Must? Will is more accurate. Christs Church all gathered together...The Wedding, Marriage, Feast, Mingling, visiting, much to celebrate.

[/QUOTE]
Uh, huh. And yet, no one has actually give scripture to prove these are two separate events.

In Heaven? Why are you talking about Heaven? No one said anything about Christs Church being raised up To Heaven.

Christs Church is resurrected and redeemed UP To the Clouds, the air. That is not Heaven.

1Thes 4
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:

So, you're saying that after the Rapture people just hover in the clouds for 7 years? Because if not, it's either to heaven they go, or back to earth...in which case why have a "pretribulational" rapture at all? A sentiment I would have to agree with, by the way, but you know...

You have already given your own TWO incorrect thoughts pertaining to Christ redeeming His Church...

You're replying to "I think"? How do you rebutt that? "No! You're not allowed to think! Stop this instant!
Here's the deal. You've disagreed with me twice, both times showing no inclination to back your disagreeing opinions with scripture. And to also say that we hover in the clouds for 7 years....apparently. So, if it's okay with you, I'm going to keep on thinking....

And ? Why is that statement significant when speaking of Christ redeeming His Church?

It isn't!

Christ Jesus WAS ON Earth.
He left Earth and was lifted up to Heaven.
His Return is Him returning to Earth!

Does the Redemption of Christs Church mention anything about Christ "Returning to the earth"?

No, it doesn't.
Christ doesn't mention that.
Scripture doesn't mention that.
Those who are in Christs Church waiting for Christ to redeem them do not mention that....

Why did you? It is irrelevant and inapplicable information.

Christs Church are in the Clouds, In the Air with The Lord.

We can know the Lord descended from heaven TO the Clouds/air...
But the Clouds/air are not Earth...third that is not the Event of Jesus' second coming.

It IS the Event of Christ redeeming His Church unto Himself.

Um. What?

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. -John 14:3

and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” -Acts 1:11

That Jesus is coming again is beyond doubt. I have no idea why you are trying to divert the subject to Christ redeeming his church, which is really what he did on the cross, to be perfectly honest. Our redemption is already a fact. Christ's return is still future.
And just saying that his 'returning in the clouds' is a separate 'return' from the second coming is one thing, but proving it scripturally is another.

Well you have skipped a plethora of knowledge and information that occurs ... that applies to All of Gods creations...that God Himself Willed would all be addressed within a 7 year period...

Seems if if fail to know God Will or do not consider the enormity of God dealing with All of His creations .... 7 years might seem like a long time if you are only thinking of yourself...get your new body, God clean up the mess, and you yo-yoed back to earth.

Sort of skipped over consideration of All the Jews who love God, but do not believe in Jesus the Christ. Eh?

Think God doesn't have a Will for them...Gods Elect...during the 7 years?

Knowledge First...
then Understanding.

That's how it works,

God Bless,
Taken

No, I didn't skip over the Jews "who love God but don't believe in Jesus". If they don't come to Jesus, they won't be saved. Simple, and God's word. Of course, I think Romans 11 suggests that before the end God will bring large numbers of them to Christ, but that does not require, nor does the text state, that a pre-trib rapture has to take place for that to happen.

And what is better? The people to be yoyoed, or Christ to be yoyoed? Someone is going to be yoyoed. In Jewish culture when someone of authority and importance was coming to visit, it was tradition and respect to go out to greet them, then accompany them back into the city. We do it now. If a guest shows up, you go out and greet them and walk them back inside. It's respectful. So why is it so crazy to think we go up to meet Christ in the air as he comes down, and then return with him as he continues back down? It's not, at all. The only problem a person can have with it, is if it doesn't suit their preconcieved doctrines.

 

[Naomi25]

Here is the math regarding the 70 weeks according to my sources. The decree occurred on March 4, 444BC Neh. 2:1-8, the 69 weeks = 483 yrs. which brings us to Mar. 29, 33AD. This takes us to the triumphal entry which is when Messiah comes as King, not at the start of His ministry 3 1/2 yrs. earlier as some claim. This fulfills the prophecy of Zech. 9:9 - "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." This is not symbolic, it has been proven mathematically. Here's more math: 69 weeks of 7 yrs. of 360 days = 173,880 days we arrive at it this way, 444bc to 33 ad = 476 years but the Roman calendar was changed around 45 bc so if you multiply 476 x 365.24219 it equals 173, 855 days. When you add the 25 days from Mar. 4 to March 29, it comes to the prophesied 483 yrs./173,880 days.

The purpose of the 70 weeks was six-fold. Dan. 9:24 - "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." The context of Daniel is what separates the 70th week from the other 69 which ended with Christ's crucifixion. Dan. 9:27 - "And he (the prince that shall come, the a/c from vs. 26) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: (This has never been done) and in the midst of the week (sometime in the context of, not the exact middle) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ( in the new temple/tabernacle that will be built prior to the still future 70th week) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (words in parenthesis mine). Only the two underlined can be considered as being fulfilled, so we know that there is still more to come.

I know how Dispensationalists put together their calculations. My point was, it is not necessarily correct to assume that 445-44bc is the date the 70 weeks started. And if this is indeed the case, which I think biblical data can back up, then we need to seriously consider if the 70 weeks is chronological and literal. It is more logical, biblically, to believe that the 70 weeks are sabbatical. We need to remember that not only were the Israelites supposed to rest on the 7th day, the land also was to be left to rest in the 7th year. When Gabriel spoke of the “sevens,” 70 of which were decreed for Israel, he clearly had in mind the 7 year period, the 7th year of which was a sabbatical year of rest for the land (Lev. 25:2-7). Meredith Kline points out that the sabbath itself, whether for the people or the land, functioned “as a prophetic symbol of the consummation of the covenant order. As elaborated in the Mosaic covenant . . . the sabbath served as a sign of the messianic age of redemptive liberation, restitution, and rest ( Heb. 4:1-11)”.
So, clearly the 70 weeks have more behind them than just a numeric or calendar value. They mean something to Israel. This is confirmed by '70' 7's. Why 70 of these units? Because of Lev 25:8-55 and the meaning of Jubilee. The Jubilee year was one in which social justice and equity, freedom, pardon, release, and restoration were emphasized and experienced. The jubilee signalled a new beginning, the inauguration of moral, spiritual, and national renewal. Thus, it can be clearly seen how such a year would prefigure the coming of Messiah. A Jubilee was every 49 years, thus 490 years is 10 Jubilees.
Can we see how the numbers are beginning to symbolize the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan in Christ? If: we cannot rely on the date precisely starting in 445-44bc and leading up to Christ's death, and: we must play with the text to insert a gap that is not there for it to make any sense, how can we not take a step back and look at it with fresh eyes? How can we not ask what sort of meaning it may have had to the readers of the time? That sabbath and jubilee was essential and symbolic to the Jewish people is beyond question, it was part of their law. And the meaning behind jubilee points to the redemptive, restorative, liberation that Christ bought for us on the cross, and then will bring in completion at his second coming.

 

[Enoch111]

So, you're saying that after the Rapture people just hover in the clouds for 7 years?

Where did you get this absurd notion? Christians go to Heaven, and remain there until the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Naomi25]

Where did you get this absurd notion? Christians go to Heaven, and remain there until the Second Coming of Christ.

Sigh. I didn't have this absurd notion. I SAID it was absurd. I disagree with the 'remaining in heaven for 7 years', obviously, but no...I absolutely did not say we were going to be hovering in the clouds for that long. I was attempting to clarify what Taken had said, as it sounded very much like it was what he was proposing.

 

[Taken]

Scripture?

1Cor 15
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Uh, huh. And yet, no one has actually give scripture to prove these are two separate events.

Um ... Heaven, Clouds/air, earth...Scripture is pretty clear those are not the same places...as well Scripture is clear the Lord Jesus appears in each place.

So, you're saying that after the Rapture people just hover in the clouds for 7 years?

Well I didn't say Hover.

Because if not, it's either to heaven they go, or back to earth.

And how did you conclude that?

There is nothing that says Jesus returns from the Clouds and goes back to Heaven.

There is nothing that says Jesus is ON the Earth when Power is given the antichrist or during God pouring out His Wrath and Indignation upon the earth....

But what Scripture does say is His Church, once called up to the Clouds ARE forever with the Lord.

Nothing says you have to be called up, since You almost seem perturbed by the notion.

..in which case why have a "pretribulational" rapture at all?

Why do you think?


A sentiment I would have to agree with, by the way, but you know...

And to also say that we hover in the clouds for 7 years....apparently. So, if it's okay with you, I'm going to keep on thinking....

Word of wisdom.
You do your thinking with your carnal mind.
The Carnal Mind is Against God.

That Jesus is coming again is beyond doubt. I have no idea why you are trying to divert the subject to Christ redeeming his church,

Uh maybe you should read the OP. It is about Christ redeeming His church.

which is really what he did on the cross, to be perfectly honest.

Perfectly honest would be the Truth.
What Jesus did on the Cross was OFFER His Body for the life of the World....which is not redemption.

Our redemption is already a fact.

For some people redemption will come to pass, for others it will not.

Christ's return is still future.

Not disputed.

And just saying that his 'returning in the clouds' is a separate 'return' from the second coming is one thing, but proving it scripturally is another.

Well you can try and prove where Jesus is...and that is where His redeemed Church will be.

1 Thes 4
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

No, I didn't skip over the Jews "who love God but don't believe in Jesus".

Sure you did. No mention of them.
They are ON earth during part of the Tribulation.
They become Redeemed out of the the Tribulation.

If they don't come to Jesus, they won't be saved. Simple, and God's word.

Uh...

Rom 11[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written...

Of course, I think Romans 11 suggests that before the end God will bring large numbers of them to Christ, but that does not require, nor does the text state, that a pre-trib rapture has to take place for that to happen.

What would like to be....while DIVISION of those with God FROM those without God is happening?

And what is better? The people to be yoyoed, or Christ to be yoyoed? Someone is going to be yoyoed.

Better than what? You mocking Scripture?

So why is it so crazy to think we go up to meet Christ in the air as he comes down, and then return with him as he continues back down?

It's not, at all. The only problem a person can have with it, is if it doesn't suit their preconcieved doctrines.

Well do provide the Scripture that Jesus IS ON EARTH during the Tribulation...Since being up off the earth During the tribulation, does not apparently suit you.

Glory to God,
Taken