No scripture supports the Rapture

[Wormwood]

Why is the impetus on me to prove what Jesus "meant" by not quoting an entire passage? I think the one making an assertion by omission is the one who has to prove their point. My point is simply that you are making assumptions about what Jesus didn't say. I am making no such assumptions. Thus, I think it is on you to prove Jesus' rationale for what he didn't say. I will stick with what he did say.

The passage that refers to joy, etc, comes AFTER the passage about the vengeance of God. That is my point. These passages about joy, righteousness, etc are discussed after the proclaim action of vengeance. So how would they not be future also? Do you see the issue?

I agree it was a comparison to Antiochus Epiphanes IV, but this fulfillment took place in 70 AD. At least, I think that is the most "simple" interpretation. Suggesting that Daniel is referring to a covenant Jesus would establish, that would later be removed by the rapture of the Church only to return back to a previous covenant with physical Israel which is kicked off by a bad covenant established by some future Antichrist figure who has strutted around the new/old Temple from an old covenant in order to desecrate it is anything but a "simple" or "clear" interpretation of this text...which is why no one believed as much for 1800 years after the church began.

Again, you are not reading my comments very carefully. I would encourage you to go back and read them slowly without skimming and then assuming you know what I am saying without actually reading it. I said nothing about Rome and a covenant with Israel. If you arent going to bother to read what I write, then I will not bother to continue this conversation. I am more than willing to try to understand your views better (if I am mistaking them), but only if you are serious about reading my comments in return.

Are you a seminary student? (You dont have to answer this if you do not want to)

 

[Copperhead]

I request you tell me what you think Jesus meant. I did tell you what I think Jesus meant. I based this discussion of these passages on how He was describing things. If you can counter that Jesus did not perceive these thing the way I mentioned, then show that He didn't.

Well, I suppose I could cut and paste the entire Bible to satisfy your desires, but I assume most of us are adults and can look the passage up and read it for themselves. That may sound quaint. I see no need to turn posts into doctoral dissertations that take an hour to read.

Ok.... did the rest of the passage you take issue with me in Isaiah, have the ruins been rebuilt? The former desolations been raised? And Israel eating the riches of the gentiles?

That joy you are talking about is indeed future. They reference the future restoration of Israel during the millennial kingdom. My bad, I was equating "joy" with "heal the broken hearted" that Jesus did read. If you think that being healed of a broken heart is not joy, well......

For this being fulfilled in 70 AD, requires allegorizing scripture. That takes effort and is not nearly the "easiest interpretation".

Nope. Not a seminary student. Never have been. Is that important?

 

[ScottA]

1 Peter 1:20 He [Jesus] was predestined before the foundation of the world....for the atonement of our sins.
Just like our promise of Eternal life; ready for all who endure till the end, Revelation 13:10, but not a reality until the Appointed time.

Yes, and it is that "appointed time" that we are discussing. But you have not answered my question as to how much time exists after you die?

My point is, that if you also believe that "to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord"...then that is the "appointed time." And if you also believe that Paul was correct to say the each person experiences what is said of the Rapture, "each in his own order", and "as with Adam" (all by one man, but each in their own time), then that "appointed time" has been made known to you. Why then, would you speak of the appointed time as not "as with Adam" and not "each in his own order", but in a one-time, mass, future event, unlike any of that?

 

[Wormwood]

I request you tell me what you think Jesus meant. I did tell you what I think Jesus meant. I based this discussion of these passages on how He was describing things. If you can counter that Jesus did not perceive these thing the way I mentioned, then show that He didn't.

You told me what you think Jesus meant by stopping the reading where he did. I believe this is an argument from silence. Maybe that was the end of the reading for the day. Maybe Jesus wanted to focus on his role of healing and proclaiming the Gospel (the context of this reading is an issue with miracles in which he refused to perform such works in his home town because that is what they were demanding). Maybe Jesus' mouth was dry and he decided to stop reading. I don't know why he stopped there. I don't believe any sound hermeneutical approach builds its theology off of omissions and assumptions about what ISNT said in the text. I think you are missing the point of the passage by inserting ideas about what wasn't said and then trying to cram that into a presupposed eschatology.

Well, I suppose I could cut and paste the entire Bible to satisfy your desires, but I assume most of us are adults and can look the passage up and read it for themselves. That may sound quaint. I see no need to turn posts into doctoral dissertations that take an hour to read.

I think you are missing the entire reason I responded to these passages you quoted in the first place. My point was not to construct an eschatology off of them. My point was simply to say that these passages were referring to the life, ministry and death of Jesus, period. They mention nothing of second comings, Great Tribulations, millennial reigns or anything else. They use OT passages that you would never, from a "plain" reading of those OT passages, assume they were speaking of the ministry of Jesus. Yet, the NT writers saw that all of the OT pointed to Jesus. Whether it was the rock in the wilderness, birth of "Immanuel," the suffering servant, the groans of David's suffering in Psalm 22, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the temple or the calling of Israel out of Egypt by God. All of these things they saw as foreshadowing the ultimate work of God in Jesus and the Church. Clearly these were "spiritual" renderings of the text and not the most base or plain readings of them. That was my simple point. I was not, and am not trying to assert my own eschatology on the Zechariah or Hosea passage. I am simply challenging your notion that 1) the prophecies in the OT are understood through non-spiritual and simple readings of them and 2) that dispensationalism itself is a "simple" or "obvious" hermeneutical lens. Otherwise, it wouldn't have taken 1800 years to be invented.

Ok.... did the rest of the passage you take issue with me in Isaiah, have the ruins been rebuilt? The former desolations been raised? And Israel eating the riches of the gentiles?

Look, you clearly can see no other way to read these texts than the dispensational lenses you wear. I think it does little good to give you my take on all this as you have already made up your mind and see any other view as preposterous and ignorant of the "plain" reading of the passages in question. Instead, let me answer your question with a simple text from Paul...

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”” (Galatians 4:21–27, ESV)

Now, you tell me, is this the most simple and plain reading of this text? Is it "natural" to read Hagar and Sarah as allegories of the two covenants? Is the passage about the children of the desolate one in the OT contextually properly understood as children of faith vs children of law? Of course not, yet this is how Paul sees these texts. Maybe taking a tape measure to OT prophecies is not the best way to understand them? Maybe?

How about another text...

“As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”” (Romans 9:25–26, ESV)

I encourage you to go read Hosea 2 and see if you think the "plain" reading of this text is referring to Gentile believers. Clearly it is not. It is referring to God calling Israel back after they had turned from him. However, Paul does not use it this way. Was he in error, or is there a better way to read the OT?

So my simple answer to you is this... why do you demand a wooden, literalist approach to prophecy when we see no such approach with the NT writers. They saw Jesus' body as the true Temple. They saw Jesus as true Israel, called out of Egypt. They saw the New Covenant as representing those born by faith (the seed of Isaac) vs those clinging to the Old Covenant by flesh (the seed of Ishmael). They had no issue seeing all of the OT Scriptures as finding their ultimate fulfillment and purpose in the work of Jesus, yet your approach claims Jesus did not complete his work and that much of the promises of God were left unanswered. It seems you are siding with the Pharisees who argued that Jesus could not be fulfilling the Messianic role because he was not fulfilling their OT Messianic expectations (overthrow Rome, rebuild the Temple in even more glorious fashion, make Israel rich, etc.). I think you are missing it, just as they did.

 

[keras]

Yes, and it is that "appointed time" that we are discussing. But you have not answered my question as to how much time exists after you die?

My point is, that if you also believe that "to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord"...then that is the "appointed time." And if you also believe that Paul was correct to say the each person experiences what is said of the Rapture, "each in his own order", and "as with Adam" (all by one man, but each in their own time), then that "appointed time" has been made known to you. Why then, would you speak of the appointed time as not "as with Adam" and not "each in his own order", but in a one-time, mass, future event, unlike any of that?

The verses I quoted made it plain: Eternal life does not come to anyone until the end, that is; at the Great White throne Judgement, when the Book of life will be opened.
It is quite illogical to think that God will confer immortality before that time. Note that there will be death during the Millennium. Isaiah 65:20

Paul's prophecy in 2 Corinthians 5:6-10, is just that; a promise to those Christians who stand firm in their faith and when we all stand before Him, we will receive what is due to us. For the good; Eternal life, for the bad; the Lake of fire. All as per Revelation 20:11-15, that undeniably confirms when it will happen.

 

[Copperhead]

So my simple answer to you is this... why do you demand a wooden, literalist approach to prophecy when we see no such approach with the NT writers. They saw Jesus' body as the true Temple. They saw Jesus as true Israel, called out of Egypt. They saw the New Covenant as representing those born by faith (the seed of Isaac) vs those clinging to the Old Covenant by flesh (the seed of Ishmael). They had no issue seeing all of the OT Scriptures as finding their ultimate fulfillment and purpose in the work of Jesus, yet your approach claims Jesus did not complete his work and that much of the promises of God were left unanswered. It seems you are siding with the Pharisees who argued that Jesus could not be fulfilling the Messianic role because he was not fulfilling their OT Messianic expectations (overthrow Rome, rebuild the Temple in even more glorious fashion, make Israel rich, etc.). I think you are missing it, just as they did.

I guess I could say likewise. Why do you demand a more liberal, allegorical approach and feel the needs to counter any other view? You are as guilty as you claim I am. It really makes little difference. I do not make a claim to dispensational or other position. I only follow the principle of "when the plain sense of scripture makes sense, then seek no other sense". That is a principle of scripture interpretation that has stood the test of time and led to the least error. There are indeed rhetorical devices used in scripture... allegories, puns, etc. But it is allegorical to put other meanings or try to put a spin on a scripture passage that is not implied in the passage. It is taking liberties with scripture that can cause anyone to come up with alternative meanings that were not intended and lead to doctrinal error. Not that this issue is relevant to this assertion, but allegorical approaches to scripture led straight to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The Nazis used many allegorical interpretations of scripture passages espoused by Augustine and Luther to justify their annihilation of the Jews. Allegorical approaches to scripture is a moving target that no one seems to hit. 2000 years of church history should show anyone that. And the adversary is giddy over nothing more than we tie ourselves up in such disputes and keep the confusion going. And I am guilty for taking the bait.

And all of it means nothing. One day, we will see how it all plays out. We probably all are in error and have egg on our face. That is why I do not claim to be dispensational or whatever. Not even sure I understand all the nuances of dispensationalism (I sure couldn't give a good description of the position if a gun was put to my head) and really don't waste a lot of time on it. I am more in line with what would be called a Pan-Tribulationalist. It will all pan out according to the will of God. But I have made my position on these things known. And I waste little time worrying if they are accepted or ridiculed. I know if whom I have placed my trust. If I have things right, I will have no time to gloat. I will be too busy thanking my Lord for paying the price to rescue me from sin and death.

We will just have to agree to disagree. The game is a draw.

 

[bbyrd009]

It is taking liberties with scripture that can cause anyone to come up with alternative meanings that were not intended and lead to doctrinal error.

i think these can easily be challenged by attacking the definition the "anyone" is using to represent the original word used; iow i can make an argument for the original word "woman" symbolizing "soul" or "ego" or likely even "Church;" but i cannot very well make an argument for "lampstand."

What was intended--we hopefully agree--is the spiritual principle that is (either) being related (or not), and "doctrinal error" ends up being the argument we all use against the concepts that we do not agree with anyway imo.

And there is no doctrine that you could even relate to me that is unassailable; not a single one. Give it a shot if you like.

 

[keras]

We will just have to agree to disagree. The game is a draw.

But why can't we know what the Lord has planned for our future? Paul says we Christians should not be in the dark. 1 Thess 5:4 Why has God given us so much prophecy; nearly 1/3 of our Bibles?
What IS our problem in understanding what the Prophets wrote?
Here is a clue: Isaiah 29:9-12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
So the fact is; those who choose to believe false theories and wrong doctrines, will become locked into them and unable to comprehend the truth. In my case, it was only when I cleared my mind of all 'church' and other teachings, like the 'left behind rubbish', and immersed myself in the Bible, with prayer and fasting, that some understanding of what must come, was given.
Sine then, God has inspired me to write over 500 short articles on the Prophetic Word. We can and should be aware of what He is about to do, very soon now and what He wants for us, now and during the difficult times ahead.
logostelos.info

 

[bbyrd009]

no one can comprehend what God has planned for us - Google Search

i was looking for the verse paraphrased "no eye has seen, nor can any mind even comprehend the things that God has in store for those who love Him," but whatever

 

[bbyrd009]

why can't we know what the Lord has planned for our future? - Google Search

also has some relevant perspective

 

[ScottA]

The verses I quoted made it plain: Eternal life does not come to anyone until the end, that is; at the Great White throne Judgement, when the Book of life will be opened.
It is quite illogical to think that God will confer immortality before that time. Note that there will be death during the Millennium. Isaiah 65:20

Paul's prophecy in 2 Corinthians 5:6-10, is just that; a promise to those Christians who stand firm in their faith and when we all stand before Him, we will receive what is due to us. For the good; Eternal life, for the bad; the Lake of fire. All as per Revelation 20:11-15, that undeniably confirms when it will happen.

That is all true...except your understanding of the timing. Considering all things to be on a worldly timeline, you would be correct. But the kingdom is "not of this world." In the kingdom there is "no shadow of turning" - no time. Therefore, if one dies today, and another dies 10 years from now...they depart the world apart, but arrive in the kingdom together. Thus, the end comes to "each in his own order", but only in the world. The end does not conform to the world, but the world to the end (to the kingdom).

 

[keras]

That is all true...except your understanding of the timing. Considering all things to be on a worldly timeline, you would be correct. But the kingdom is "not of this world." In the kingdom there is "no shadow of turning" - no time. Therefore, if one dies today, and another dies 10 years from now...they depart the world apart, but arrive in the kingdom together. Thus, the end comes to "each in his own order", but only in the world. The end does not conform to the world, but the world to the end (to the kingdom).

Glad you agree that people die and then comes the end, regardless of when death occurs; today or 6000 years ago.
Just as Revelation 20:11-15 and Daniel 7:9-10 state. But where do you get that we arrive in the Kingdom?
Hebrews 9:27 It is appointed unto men once to die and then comes the Judgement.
Your determination to have a 'new body' or even immortality before Judgement and the Book of Life is opened, is wrong and unbiblical.

i was looking for the verse paraphrased "no eye has seen, nor can any mind even comprehend the things that God has in store for those who love Him," but whatever

1 Corinthians 2:9 Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither can we imagine all the blessing that God has prepared by God for those who love Him.
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of the present times are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed to us.
This tells of the amazing blessings that God will pour upon His Christian people, as they go to live in all of the holy Land. Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, Hosea 14:4-7, Romans 9:24-26, +

 

[Wormwood]

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I only came off as strong as I did because you claimed Amillenialists guilty of heresy and implied your view to be "plain sense" and indicated those who disagree as obstinate to what is "plain." My point was simply to show you that your view is not plain. Could I be wrong? Sure. I'm fine with humbly discussing ideas. However, I felt compelled to challenge you because how you were approaching the subject. I agree it's not a big issue, but to suggest a large bulk of historical Christianity to be heresy is a bit over the line.

 

[OzSpen]

The verses I quoted made it plain: Eternal life does not come to anyone until the end, that is; at the Great White throne Judgement, when the Book of life will be opened.
It is quite illogical to think that God will confer immortality before that time.

keras,

How does that teaching harmonise with John 3:36 (NIV): 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them'?

'Believes' is a Greek present tense participle, indicating continuous action.
'Has' is Greek present tense indicative, indicating continuous action.

The Greek language of John 3:36 contradicts your teaching here. The person who continues to believe in the Son continues to have eternal life, here and throughout eternity. I'm enjoying eternal life now.

John 3:16 teaches the same message of continuing to have everlasting life from the moment a person starts and continues to believe.

Oz

 

[ScottA]

Glad you agree that people die and then comes the end, regardless of when death occurs; today or 6000 years ago.
Just as Revelation 20:11-15 and Daniel 7:9-10 state. But where do you get that we arrive in the Kingdom?
Hebrews 9:27 It is appointed unto men once to die and then comes the Judgement.
Your determination to have a 'new body' or even immortality before Judgement and the Book of Life is opened, is wrong and unbiblical.

Again, that is all a perception of things on a timeline, which is not the case in the kingdom. That understanding is true as it has been written, and for our understanding, but in the renewing of our mind it is not so. We will even experience the Judgement and opening of the Book of Life, as you say, but not in the way you have perceived. Read the passage again: The death of the body is the end, which is the "second death"...which is also the Judgement and the opening of the Books. The world is Judged...as we speak (1 Corinthians 6:2).

In the end, it is finished: "To be absent of the body, is to be present with the Lord."

 

[keras]

keras,

How does that teaching harmonise with John 3:36 (NIV): 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them'?
'Believes' is a Greek present tense participle, indicating continuous action.
'Has' is Greek present tense indicative, indicating continuous action.

The Greek language of John 3:36 contradicts your teaching here. The person who continues to believe in the Son continues to have eternal life, here and throughout eternity. I'm enjoying eternal life now.
John 3:16 teaches the same message of continuing to have everlasting life from the moment a person starts and continues to believe. Oz

The promise given to believers in John 3:18 & 36 Is only that, a promise. Are you immortal now? Just like me, you could die tomorrow. And you will know nothing, Eccl 9:5, until you stand with the rest of the dead at the Great White Throne. THEN, provided you have continued in faith; not backslidden and your name is in the Book of Life, you will receive immortality.
Note that it is possible to be 'blotted out of the Book of Life, Psalms 69:28, Psalms 109:13, Hebrews 10:26-27

The whole idea of spiritual bodies and immortality before that time, is just a construct of the 'rapture to heaven' theory, a wrong teaching that contradicts Bible truth.

 

[Wormwood]

Keras,

I agree with one part of your statement. I agree that we are called to endure in our faith. As Oz mentioned, "believes" is a present participle and indicates this to be something ongoing (not a momentary assent to some fact about Jesus or momentary trust). However, I also agree with Oz that eternal life begins when we put our faith in Jesus. Jesus declared that "whoever believed in me will never die" (see John 11). Eternal life does begin immediately when we are joined with Christ. I believe this is true because eternal life and the resurrection are not primarily "events" they are a person. Jesus IS eternal life and he IS the resurrection. If we unite our lives with him in faith, we have that life. If we cut ourselves off from the faith, we do not have that life because the life is his possession, not ours. We are "in Christ" and therefore participate in his eternal life. Moreover, Paul declared that to be apart from the body is to be "present with the Lord" and Jesus told the thief on the cross, "this day you will be with me in paradise." Thus, I am convinced that we do go immediately to be present with the Lord, yet as Revelation points out, this is not natural for us and we long for the resurrection to live in our resurrected bodies. The spirits cry out at the altar, "How long O' Lord....". THey are longing for the judgment of the wicked and the resurrection of the righteous. Just my rambling thoughts.

 

[OzSpen]

The promise given to believers in John 3:18 & 36 Is only that, a promise. Are you immortal now? Just like me, you could die tomorrow. And you will know nothing, Eccl 9:5, until you stand with the rest of the dead at the Great White Throne. THEN, provided you have continued in faith; not backslidden and your name is in the Book of Life, you will receive immortality.
Note that it is possible to be 'blotted out of the Book of Life, Psalms 69:28, Psalms 109:13, Hebrews 10:26-27

The whole idea of spiritual bodies and immortality before that time, is just a construct of the 'rapture to heaven' theory, a wrong teaching that contradicts Bible truth.

keras,

You did not respond to the Greek verbs that I presented in John 3:36 where I have eternal life NOW, as long as I continue to believe.

'Has' means I have it now.

Your relying on Eccl 9:5 for what happens after death forgets about other Old Covenant revelation before the cross that was evident in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). There was most certainly life after death for both believer and unbeliever.

You quote Eccl 9:5. Have you forgotten Eccl 12:7 (NIV), 'the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it'?

After my last breath, I'll be 'away from the body and at home with the Lord' (2 Cor 5:8 NIV). There's no 'you will know nothing, Eccl 9:5, until you stand with the rest of the dead at the Great White Throne', as you said. That's your theology but not supported by NT biblical revelation.

As for immortality, there is only one Person who is truly immortal – God Himself, as stated in 1 Tim. 6:15-16 (ESV), “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion.”

Therefore, only God is immortal in the sense that He is the Owner and Originator of human life and he Himself has always existed.

The immortality of the soul for human beings is in a derived sense and applies to all people, believers and unbelievers. Second Timothy 1:10 (ESV) speaks of God’s purpose and grace “which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (See my article, Immortality of the Soul)

Oz

 

[keras]

Again, that is all a perception of things on a timeline, which is not the case in the kingdom. That understanding is true as it has been written, and for our understanding, but in the renewing of our mind it is not so. We will even experience the Judgement and opening of the Book of Life, as you say, but not in the way you have perceived. Read the passage again: The death of the body is the end, which is the "second death"...which is also the Judgement and the opening of the Books. The world is Judged...as we speak (1 Corinthians 6:2).
In the end, it is finished: "To be absent of the body, is to be present with the Lord."

This is practically unintelligible.

Re the 'second death', this applies to the martyrs resurrected at Jesus' Return. Rev 20:4-6 They simply come to life again, just like Lazarus did and they may or may not die again, but they have the absolute assurance of eventual immortality at the GWT.
God's people, true Christians will be priests and rulers during the Millennium, Revelation 5:9-10

Your last Corinthians quote is in 2 Corinthians 5:6-10, finishes with: For we must all have our lives laid open before the tribunal of Christ, where we each will receive what is due to them....good or bad.

 

[keras]

You did not respond to the Greek verbs that I presented in John 3:36 where I have eternal life NOW, as long as I continue to believe.

Quite correct, you have the promise of eternal life now, and provided you maintain your faith you will receive it at the GWT. Greek verbs? So what; it is the basic meaning and the logical understanding that counts.

After my last breath, I'll be 'away from the body and at home with the Lord' (2 Cor 5:8 NIV). There's no 'you will know nothing, Eccl 9:5, until you stand with the rest of the dead at the Great White Throne', as you said. That's your theology but not supported by NT biblical revelation.

NT teaching: Hebrews 9:27 our lot is to die once, with Judgement to follow. John 3:13 No one goes to heaven... 1 Thess 4:13...those who sleep in death... Rev 14:13 Happy are those who die in their faith...let them rest...
The idea of the dead going to live in heaven, is just a false assurance spoken at funerals to grieving relatives.
No; Eccl 9:5, Job 14:10-12, Psalms 22:29, plus many others are NOT superseded by the New Testament.