The Truth About The Rapture

[Foreigner]

"I don't think you are the person to make any judgments about any person’s qualifications. - Paul

-- Yet you make judgements on what people believe here all the time. You seem to assume that just because they disagree with you that they are not qualified to speak on the subject. Isn't that a judgement on their qualifications?



Do you remember who Paul trained under, he tells us. You also don’t know anything about Xander or me. Do you know what I do for a living? No, you don’t. How can you even presume how much time I spend in God’s Word." - Paul

-- I don't presume how much time you spend in God's word other than to assume that there are a number of people in this world - yes, some that I know - who have spent more.
Or have you spent 42 of your 60 years here on earth having devoted your life to studying God's Word and working towards His return?
-- Or 37 of your 57 years studying and teaching His Word both in the U.S and in Israel?
-- Or 31 of your 50 years learning Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, living and studying throughout the Holy Land in order to better encounter and learn God's Word through intense Old and New Testament research?
-- Or even "just" 19 years being mentored and yourself mentoring while striving to understand the true meaning of God's word, your life's work being the identifying of fulfilled prophecy and Eschatology?

If so, congrats. If not, then accept the fact that there are those who have spent more time and heartfelt effort studying God's Word than you (and I) have. These are but a few and in some areas they agree and in others they strive to come to agreement.

You don't know anything about me or what I do for a living either, yet you put forth the straw man that I somehow claimed to have a Ph. D.
You have no idea how much time I (or anyone else for that matter) spend in God's Word, but if we disagree with you, you let us know that we are wrong. Period.

I will take your statements about you as indication that no, you do not have a Ph.D. Does that mean you are not learned? Of course not.

The example of the Ph. D was one of a number for people who have spend literally their entire life (50-60 years) seeking God yet disagree with each other about what the Bible says about the Rapture.

But somehow you are the expert. I tend to agree with you about the Rapture, but I am willing to accept the fact that there are those more learned than I have a differing opinion and it isn't because they have embraced "a demon theology."



"Ah, why spend my time arguing with you, I have far better things to do." - Paul

Why is it that people make comments like this only AFTER they have made sure and say every thing they want to say. Let us see if you are truly done.



-----------------------------
You make an excelled point, Bud02.

 

[veteran]

Scholar, or no scholar, both can equally be deceived.

Apostle Paul was an excellent Biblical scholar of the Old Testament, having been brought up by one of the best Hebrew scholars of his day (Gamaliel - Acts 22:3; Acts 5:34). And look how deceived Paul (Saul) was originally, even participating in hunting down Christians to bring them back to Jerusalem in chains for trial.

I think the 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger was an excellent Bible scholar, and his KJV study Bible still the best English KJV study Bible on the market. Yet he believed the doctrines of a Pre-Trib "secret rapture" that originated in Britain in the 1830's.

Does that mean we should simply follow Bullinger in that, just because of all the excellent scholarship he did? No, for even Bullinger went against the direct statement our Lord Jesus gave that His coming would be 'after' the tribulation (Matt.24:29-31).

We each have a duty to our Heavenly Father and His Son to stay in His Word as written, no matter what. We are not to put our trust in man, but in God in HIS Word. Like those at Berea, we are to check out our teachers in God's Word for ourselves, putting our trust in God instead of man.

Many have come back to me after I had witnessed to them, that IF they get into God's Word line upon line for theirselves, asking The Father through His Son for understanding, that He would give It to them according to His Will and their ability. They said they really didn't believe it was possible for God to directly give them understanding in His Word without first going through a Church organization or seminary school. They learned that He will give It directly, IF we ask HIm and study His Word how He taught us to study It (Isa.28; line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little).

So how many Churches today are actually taking time to cover all of God's Word in that manner line upon line, chapter by chapter? Very few Churches are doing that. And that's how so many confused doctrines have gotten started.

To reveal this to a Christian brother once, I recommended he ask his Sunday School teacher to start a line upon line Bible study starting in Genesis 1 all the way to the end of Revelation 22. He reported his teacher as saying that he must think they had all the time in the world. With that the following from God's Word is confirmed...

Isa 29:10-14
10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath He covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I cannot; for it is sealed":
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I am not learned."
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
(KJV)

Why then, should we place trust in men that can't cover all of God's Word line upon line, probably because they haven't even studied all of It for themselves? God bless the Christian leaders that are able to teach His Word line upon line from Genesis through Revelation, and that try to cover It that way, even though most Church systems today are against doing that.

I guarantee, that if a believer covers study in God's Word His way, the many leaven doctrines of men being pushed today will become as dross to one's understanding, and fall by the wayside.

 

[Xanderoc]

Scholar, or no scholar, both can equally be deceived.

Apostle Paul was an excellent Biblical scholar of the Old Testament, having been brought up by one of the best Hebrew scholars of his day (Gamaliel - Acts 22:3; Acts 5:34). And look how deceived Paul (Saul) was originally, even participating in hunting down Christians to bring them back to Jerusalem in chains for trial.

I think the 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger was an excellent Bible scholar, and his KJV study Bible still the best English KJV study Bible on the market. Yet he believed the doctrines of a Pre-Trib "secret rapture" that originated in Britain in the 1830's.

Does that mean we should simply follow Bullinger in that, just because of all the excellent scholarship he did? No, for even Bullinger went against the direct statement our Lord Jesus gave that His coming would be 'after' the tribulation (Matt.24:29-31).

We each have a duty to our Heavenly Father and His Son to stay in His Word as written, no matter what. We are not to put our trust in man, but in God in HIS Word. Like those at Berea, we are to check out our teachers in God's Word for ourselves, putting our trust in God instead of man.

Many have come back to me after I had witnessed to them, that IF they get into God's Word line upon line for theirselves, asking The Father through His Son for understanding, that He would give It to them according to His Will and their ability. They said they really didn't believe it was possible for God to directly give them understanding in His Word without first going through a Church organization or seminary school. They learned that He will give It directly, IF we ask HIm and study His Word how He taught us to study It (Isa.28; line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little).

So how many Churches today are actually taking time to cover all of God's Word in that manner line upon line, chapter by chapter? Very few Churches are doing that. And that's how so many confused doctrines have gotten started.

To reveal this to a Christian brother once, I recommended he ask his Sunday School teacher to start a line upon line Bible study starting in Genesis 1 all the way to the end of Revelation 22. He reported his teacher as saying that he must think they had all the time in the world. With that the following from God's Word is confirmed...

Isa 29:10-14
10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath He covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I cannot; for it is sealed":
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I am not learned."
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
(KJV)

Why then, should we place trust in men that can't cover all of God's Word line upon line, probably because they haven't even studied all of It for themselves? God bless the Christian leaders that are able to teach His Word line upon line from Genesis through Revelation, and that try to cover It that way, even though most Church systems today are against doing that.

I guarantee, that if a believer covers study in God's Word His way, the many leaven doctrines of men being pushed today will become as dross to one's understanding, and fall by the wayside.

Amen, Veteran
If people did study God's word precept upon precept, and the church's these days rightly divide the word of truth, there will be less confusion among the people. But the sad part is, people put so much trust upon their pastors, they are willing to follow them blindly into the lake of fire!!

 

[Martin W.]

There will be a rapture and that is a fact of scripture. The timing is the unknown part. Get over it folks.

 

[hereister]

Amen, Veteran
If people did study God's word precept upon precept, and the church's these days rightly divide the word of truth, there will be less confusion among the people. But the sad part is, people put so much trust upon their pastors, they are willing to follow them blindly into the lake of fire!!

I agree. It is so sad to see how people are too trustful with their pastors. Many do not check out what they are being taught. False teachings, traditions of men have infilterated all of God's word. The famine is here!

 

[[email protected]]

The Truth About The Rapture​

First I would start by saying there are many ways to prove the rapture theory is a spirit of error.I will start with the scriptures given to support the rapture. We need to clean up the confusion before we lay the ground work. Let’s start with the rapture and the scriptures they use to support the rapture. According to Charles C Ryrie, in the book “Basic Theology”, “the Greek word from which we take the term “rapture” comes from the Latin word rapturo. The Greek word is harpazo, which means to snatch or take away.

A good post. Your homework is well done, including all the scripture references I've not included in the quote above.

IMO the problem with the rapture and supporting tribulation dogma is that it is not based upon scripture at all. Rather its based upon a loose interpretation of snippets of scripture by Mr. John Darby; author of Dispensationalist theory in 1833. Mr. Darby used scripture to justify a false assumption.

THE REAL problem with the rapture fantasy is that:
- it does not edify the church
- it promotes argument and division
- it is an incoherent illogical system (*)
- it is an exercise in futility since man can't do anything about it one way or the other
- it does not enhance the truth of the gospel

(*) There are at least four separate theories of the rapture (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib and post-millenial), none of which are logical or coherent when fully expanded.
In fact, most scriptural references are either indirect or obscure passages suggesting only a peek at divine providence instead of a specific chronological order or pattern.

Early in 2010 at a conference of churches in South Africa, the dogma was rejected as a tenant of Christianity. The reasons were as stated above; it is divisive and does not edify the church.

The doctrine of the rapture is a nebulous fantasy at best and a futile attempt at interpreting divine will at its worst.

It is a spider web of lies liberally coated with the sweetness of scripture; the better to trap its unwary victims.

There will be a rapture and that is a fact of scripture. The timing is the unknown part. Get over it folks.

That Jesus will return is a promise and hope of Christianity to which I cling.
That it will happen suddenly is an axiom of the gospel which I accept.
That it will happen two, three or even four times is an absurdity I reject.
That it HOPES for YET ANOTHER Jewish holocaust is nothing less than racist, anti-semitic bigotry, which I abhor.

The wretched lie of the rapture theory is NOT that of timing only, rather it includes an entire epic of additional misunderstanding, misinterpretations, curses and fantastic attempts at illogic and formulations previously reserved for science fiction.

It is as bogus and odd as the legendary three dollar bill and it is a lie straight out of the mouth of hell.

 

[veteran]

Now that's going too far the other way about the idea of a rapture.

There will be a seizing to Christ when He comes, the Greek word used for it is 'harpazo'. And our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did mention a time of "great tribulation" upon His servants for the end of days just prior to His return (Matt.24; Mark 13).

NONE of that came from the likes of Darby, Dispensationalism, or any other so-called doctrine of man.

It is the specific idea of being taken off this earth to Heaven to 'escape' the coming "great tribulation" or God's wrath afterwards, which concerns the idea of a non-existent rapture. The great tribulation is going to happen just like Jesus said, and that's a whole different matter.

 

[[email protected]]

Now that's going too far the other way about the idea of a rapture.

There will be a seizing to Christ when He comes, the Greek word used for it is 'harpazo'. And our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did mention a time of "great tribulation" upon His servants for the end of days just prior to His return (Matt.24; Mark 13).

NONE of that came from the likes of Darby, Dispensationalism, or any other so-called doctrine of man.

It is the specific idea of being taken off this earth to Heaven to 'escape' the coming "great tribulation" or God's wrath afterwards, which concerns the idea of a non-existent rapture. The great tribulation is going to happen just like Jesus said, and that's a whole different matter.

Knee jerk response.

Did I write that the saints would NOT be caught up with Christ at His second coming?
I certainly did not write or claim any such thing.
If fact, I indeed affirm that Jesus will return again.

The confusing aspect of the rapture dogma is that Jesus will return two, three or even four times.
Those that hold to this ridiculous theory have 'seized' upon one of the three or four mutually incompatible ideas.

In fact, the rapture timing thing is very much like modern theories of evolution. They each have at least three separate theories to 'prove' their hypothesis, each one mutually exclusive.
Christians who doubt evolutionary theories like to laugh at such illogic; not realizing that they themselves also hold to the rapture dogma which is equally outlandish and incoherent - each theory 'proving' the others wrong.
Which is why the whole nonsensical thing ought to be rejected. Does Christ come back pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or pos-millenial or whatever?

C'mon, use your logic instead of your dogma.

Apparently you didn't read or consider my post AT ALL. The original doctrine of Dispensationalism did indeed state that the rapture would occur before, during, after - whatever - the great tribulation. Note that I wrote 'original' form of dispensationalism. There are at least three or four versions of that now, each one more confusing than the last.

Someone else also posted that the main problem with the theory is timing.

I'll say.

The tribulation with regard to the Jews is already past. It was called the holocaust.

Those that wish and hope for another such racial disaster are guilty of historical revisionism as well as murderous anti-semitism JUST TO SUPPORT AN INCOHERENT DOCTRINE.

Beware the curse of Balaam; those that curse Israel shall themselves be accursed and those that bless Israel shall be blessed.

I for one take this seriously and include it into my personal attitude about the Jewish portion of the tribulation.
It is past and I pray to God it will NEVER happen again.
I am willing to leave this point of tribulation interpretation in the dust of the past where it belongs.

But the reader is free to hold onto this nonsense and anti-Biblical dogma if he dares, knowing he may be opposing God in doing so.

After all, pharisaic tradition is more important than truth isn't it?

 

[veteran]

Knee jerk response.

Did I write that the saints would NOT be caught up with Christ at His second coming?
I certainly did not write or claim any such thing.
If fact, I indeed affirm that Jesus will return again.

The confusing aspect of the rapture dogma is that Jesus will return two, three or even four times.
Those that hold to this ridiculous theory have 'seized' upon one of the three or four mutually incompatible ideas.

In fact, the rapture timing thing is very much like modern theories of evolution. They each have at least three separate theories to 'prove' their hypothesis, each one mutually exclusive.
Christians who doubt evolutionary theories like to laugh at such illogic; not realizing that they themselves also hold to the rapture dogma which is equally outlandish and incoherent - each theory 'proving' the others wrong.
Which is why the whole nonsensical thing ought to be rejected. Does Christ come back pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or pos-millenial or whatever?

C'mon, use your logic instead of your dogma.

Apparently you didn't read or consider my post AT ALL. The original doctrine of Dispensationalism did indeed state that the rapture would occur before, during, after - whatever - the great tribulation. Note that I wrote 'original' form of dispensationalism. There are at least three or four versions of that now, each one more confusing than the last.

Someone else also posted that the main problem with the theory is timing.

I'll say.

The tribulation with regard to the Jews is already past. It was called the holocaust.

Those that wish and hope for another such racial disaster are guilty of historical revisionism as well as murderous anti-semitism JUST TO SUPPORT AN INCOHERENT DOCTRINE.

Beware the curse of Balaam; those that curse Israel shall themselves be accursed and those that bless Israel shall be blessed.

I for one take this seriously and include it into my personal attitude about the Jewish portion of the tribulation.
It is past and I pray to God it will NEVER happen again.
I am willing to leave this point of tribulation interpretation in the dust of the past where it belongs.

But the reader is free to hold onto this nonsense and anti-Biblical dogma if he dares, knowing he may be opposing God in doing so.

After all, pharisaic tradition is more important than truth isn't it?

There's still a difference, because most of the crazy doctrines on the idea of a rapture originate from the Pre-Trib "secret rapture" school, and not as much from the Post-Trib school, though many Post-Trib also believe in the idea of a rapture in the sense of Christ taking them to Heaven.

According to Scripture, the saints will be seized to where Christ will be, which per Zech.14 will be on this earth where Jerusalem is. But what few don't understand, is in that time, on earth is where the Heavenly is going to be revealed, for as apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 everyone will be either resurrected or changed to the "spiritual body" in that time, including the unjust. So doctrines that some will still be in a body like today's, while others are in resurrected bodies, is also false.

 

[Xanderoc]

There's still a difference, because most of the crazy doctrines on the idea of a rapture originate from the Pre-Trib "secret rapture" school, and not as much from the Post-Trib school, though many Post-Trib also believe in the idea of a rapture in the sense of Christ taking them to Heaven.

According to Scripture, the saints will be seized to where Christ will be, which per Zech.14 will be on this earth where Jerusalem is. But what few don't understand, is in that time, on earth is where the Heavenly is going to be revealed, for as apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 everyone will be either resurrected or changed to the "spiritual body" in that time, including the unjust. So doctrines that some will still be in a body like today's, while others are in resurrected bodies, is also false.

If that doctrine is false explain why would there be a need for a second resurrection? After the 1000 years of Christ reign on earth!
Rev 20:[sup]5[/sup]But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [sup]6[/sup]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

If everyone one had a spiritual body like you say there wouldn't be a need for a second resurrection. Also if Christ and those raised in the first resurrection are going to reign. Who are they suppose to reign over? If everyone is a spiritual being like you say! After the first resurrection Gog and Magog are going to get deceive by Satan to attack Israel. Rev 20:[sup]7[/sup]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, [sup]8[/sup]And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

[sup]9[/sup]And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


Satan is going to get let loose to deceive the nations! These aren't spiritual being these are mortals being destroyed by fire from God out of the sky! So your statement

" But what few don't understand, is in that time, on earth is where the Heavenly is going to be revealed, for as apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 everyone will be either resurrected or changed to the "spiritual body" in that time,( you were right until this point !) including the unjust. So doctrines that some will still be in a body like today's, while others are in resurrected bodies, is also false." That statement is false! There will be mortals, and spiritual being (the people risen in the first resurrection !) existing at the same time.

 

[veteran]

If that doctrine is false explain why would there be a need for a second resurrection? After the 1000 years of Christ reign on earth!
Rev 20:[sup]5[/sup]But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [/size] [sup]6[/sup]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

If everyone one had a spiritual body like you say there wouldn't be a need for a second resurrection. Also if Christ and those raised in the first resurrection are going to reign. Who are they suppose to reign over? If everyone is a spiritual being like you say! After the first resurrection Gog and Magog are going to get deceive by Satan to attack Israel. Rev 20:[sup]7[/sup]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, [sup]8[/sup]And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

[sup]9[/sup]And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


Satan is going to get let loose to deceive the nations! These aren't spiritual being these are mortals being destroyed by fire from God out of the sky! So your statement

" But what few don't understand, is in that time, on earth is where the Heavenly is going to be revealed, for as apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 everyone will be either resurrected or changed to the "spiritual body" in that time,( you were right until this point !) including the unjust. So doctrines that some will still be in a body like today's, while others are in resurrected bodies, is also false." That statement is false! There will be mortals, and spiritual being (the people risen in the first resurrection !) existing at the same time.

There's a simple Scripture our Lord gave that men's traditions tend to pass over...

John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)

1. "for the hour is coming"
2. "all that are in the graves shall hear His voice"
3. "And shall come forth"
4. "they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life"
5. "they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation"

That "hour" is about the time of Christ's coming to gather His elect. That's when His saints are resurrected. But in that same hour, the unjust will be resurrected also, but unto a different TYPE, the "resurrection of damnation". Apostle Paul also covered this idea of both types of resurrection, but in passing (1 Cor.15; Acts 24:15).

Don't you recall the idea our Lord Jesus was teaching when He said hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees are like whited sepulchres that appear beautiful outward, but inside are full of dead men's bones; and that they are like graves that appear not, and men that walk over them are not aware of them? That's the idea of an outward part that is alive, but an inward part that is dead spiritually, and still liable to perish with Satan in the "lake of fire".

Was Paul only covering the resurrection of the saints in 1 Cor.15? No.

1 Cor 15:48-49
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
(KJV)

Have the saints only borne that "image of the earthy" today? Of course not. Likewise the unjust will bear the "image of the heavenly", BUT under a different condition. Their "this mortal" part will still be in a liable to die condition, even while bearing that "image of the heavenly" or "spiritual body" that Paul taught. This is why Paul said it was his HOPE there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just AND UNJUST...

Acts 24:14-15
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
(KJV)

Are we to think Paul's hope in that for the unjust was a hope only for their being resurrected for judgment and casting into the lake of fire? I don't think so.

 

[Xanderoc]

You are right there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. The unjust will be resurrected after the 1000 year reign of Christ. Those that were found worthy of the first resurrection will reign and be judges with Christ. Veteran explain what does first resurrection mean. That means there will be another resurrection! Why is that so hard for you to understand. Everyone will not be raised in the first resurrection.

 

[veteran]

Well firstly, the John 5:28-29 Scripture declares both the just and unjust are resurrected at the same time of Christ's coming, but unto either one of two types of resurrection. If you're trying not to deny that Scripture then it must mean you simply don't understand how it relates to Rev.20, yet.

Secondly, the unjust are not part of the "resurrection of life" which is called the "first resurrection" in Rev.20. The unjust are of the "resurrection of damnation" at Christ's coming, which is not the second inferred resurrection either.

It appears you haven't understood how our Lord taught the idea of spiritual death of the soul as compared to the death of the flesh. I don't think you've understand what Paul taught about the resurrection body either, what he called the "spiritual body" and "image of the heavenly."

]You are right there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust.

The problem is with men's tradition that assumes the idea of resurrection automatically means Christ's Salvation unto eternal life, even while admitting the unjust are going to eventually be resurrected also. They haven't fully understood per Scripture what the resurrection is.

Veteran explain what does first resurrection mean. That means there will be another resurrection!

It's good that you recognize when a FIRST resurrection unto life is mentioned in Rev.20 that has to mean at least one more resurrection thereafter. See, I'm not disagreeing with that, since that's clearly what the Scripture states. But the REAL question is, of what TYPE is the second, and who is it for? Until you begin to recognize the John 5:28-29 Scripture as written in declaring TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESURRECTION at Christ's coming, then you won't understand what that inferred second one is about in Rev.20.

If the unjust that are still alive on earth are not resurrected at Christ's coming, and continue to live in their flesh mortal bodies during the Milennium, then why would they be called "the dead" in Rev.20:5? Think about it. The resurrection is about the raising of those who have already died when Christ comes, and about the change of those still alive on earth to the spiritual body at the twinkling of an eye like apsotle Paul said. To be resurrected from the 'dead' one must die in their flesh first, that's what you've missed.

 

[[email protected]]

There's still a difference, because most of the crazy doctrines on the idea of a rapture originate from the Pre-Trib "secret rapture" school, and not as much from the Post-Trib school, though many Post-Trib also believe in the idea of a rapture in the sense of Christ taking them to Heaven.

According to Scripture, the saints will be seized to where Christ will be, which per Zech.14 will be on this earth where Jerusalem is. But what few don't understand, is in that time, on earth is where the Heavenly is going to be revealed, for as apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 everyone will be either resurrected or changed to the "spiritual body" in that time, including the unjust. So doctrines that some will still be in a body like today's, while others are in resurrected bodies, is also false.

"secret rapture" school/doctrine? What is that?

 

[veteran]

"secret rapture" school/doctrine? What is that?

It's a doctrine that started in a certain Christian group in 1830's Great Britain (see Edward Irving Church movement). A British preacher named John Darby began associating with it, and then became one of its main representatives. Darby is the one who coined the phrase "secret rapture" for the idea that Christ is going to secretly rapture out the saints prior to the start of the great tribulation. Prior to that time, the history of the Church held to a post-tribulational coming and gathering, Christ gathering the saints after the tribulation.

Then others latched onto the doctrine, a man named Scofield created a reference Bible with the pre-trib secret rapture doctrine in its notes. Then the idea spread to the Americas in some Churches, and seminary schools sprang up in support of the doctrine (like Baptist Theological Seminary). Eventually, the pre-trib school dropped the phrase "secret rapture" and now just use the word "rapture" to describe it, while many Churches that teach a post-tribulational coming of Christ also use the word "rapture". It's caused a lot of confusion.

 

[[email protected]]

It's a doctrine that started in a certain Christian group in 1830's Great Britain (see Edward Irving Church movement). A British preacher named John Darby began associating with it, and then became one of its main representatives. Darby is the one who coined the phrase "secret rapture" for the idea that Christ is going to secretly rapture out the saints prior to the start of the great tribulation. Prior to that time, the history of the Church held to a post-tribulational coming and gathering, Christ gathering the saints after the tribulation.

Then others latched onto the doctrine, a man named Scofield created a reference Bible with the pre-trib secret rapture doctrine in its notes. Then the idea spread to the Americas in some Churches, and seminary schools sprang up in support of the doctrine (like Baptist Theological Seminary). Eventually, the pre-trib school dropped the phrase "secret rapture" and now just use the word "rapture" to describe it, while many Churches that teach a post-tribulational coming of Christ also use the word "rapture". It's caused a lot of confusion.

Thank you for that additional background. I was aware that Darby started the whole rapture bag of worms. I was not aware that Darby and company called it the 'secret rapture' initially.
I was also aware that Scofield picked up on it.

The adherents of the Darby/Dispensationalist dogma of the pre-trib rapture continued to distrubute their ideology in literature and in conferences throughout the nineteenth century in America. The popularity of that idea system grew widely. It's generally believed that with the advent of the Niagara Conference the dogma was firmly entrenched in evangelical/fundamentalist theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Bible_Conference

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the notion of a pre-trib rapture has been accepted as gospel, even though it is conjecture and intrepretation only .
Literal intrepretation of end times Bible prophecy did indeed predict a terrible persecution of the Jewish people.
In the days of John Darby (1830's) as well as during the turn of the twentieth century, those events were still in the future. The rapture-tribulation theory still looked pretty solid.
With the advent of WWII and the historical revelation of the Jewish holocaust the entire timeline of the tribulation as an intrepretation has been overthrown and upset.
The holocaust did indeed happen, just as the prophecies said it would. The problem is that the rapture has not happened - yet.
The entire sequence and time-line interpretation laid down by Darby and the Dispensationalists has been thrown out of whack.

If one is to continue to cling to the ideology of a pre-trib rapture, then one is forced to hope for ANOTHER holocaust; a matter of horror and curseing that is beyond the scope of Biblical prophecy.
It never said there would be TWO of them and that is the problem with pre-trib rapture theory. It is also why the dogma has become racist, anti-semitic, a violation of Baalam's curse and why a growing number of churches outside the USA is rejecting it altogether. Anyone with a modicum of logic and compassion for the Jewish people is also forced to do so.

The rest sit in a dark corner and hold onto an obsolete ideology that will not do them or anyone else a bit of good.

 

[Nomad]

You shouldn't be trying to teach these lies to other people.

You may want to deal with the plank in your own eye before worrying about the speck in the eye of another.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

+

 

[[email protected]]

You shouldn't be trying to teach these lies to other people.

Which 'lie' are you referring to? The commonly accepted lie of the rapture theories, of which there are at least four?

Perhaps you are writing about the misinterpretation of scripture which leads to multiple appearances of Christ and to inconsistancies in interpretation of events?

And they answering say unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Where the body is, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.
Luk 17:37

The above passage of scripture reinforces my point that rapture dogma is flawed. Many articles and books use the above scripture to add to their justification of events surrounding the second coming of Jesus Christ. Just for the sake of argument let's suppose that Christ comes back one time and one time only - seems simple enough to me.

The quoted scripture here states that the wicked will be removed, NOT the saints. Yet it is often misquoted to support the catching up of the saints to meet Jesus.
Take up your reference material and look at the end of the passage. "Eagles" here is sometimes translated as vultures, but in no case is it a pretty picture.
Most commentaries agree that this passage refers to a culling out of THE WICKED, which is directly opposed to rapture theorists.

MY POINT is that the rapture dogma, as it now stands, is terribly and horribly skewed, confusing and inaccurate as to the intent of scripture.

That Jesus will return is accepted by all Christians. The problem with the rapture is that it does not encourage the body of Christ. Instead of promoting faith, which declares the saints should stand fast in hope and trust in the Lord's deliverance, the rapture fiction holds out the notion that Christians will be removed from trouble. The Bible has NEVER intended such a thing. Always, always, always the Lord says that He will be with us in times of trouble. Testimony by millions has proven that God means to deliver on His promise. The Bible has NEVER suggested, implied or promised that His support would be withdrawn, yet the rapture ideology leads to just this conclusion by creating a false deliverance.

It is wrong and should be rejected out of hand.

 

[Xanderoc]

You shouldn't be trying to teach these lies to other people.

What lie. Prove through the scripture which is a lie. The rapture is a false doctrine! Simple as that.
Show me when Christ its suppose to take any one off the planet, take them back to heaven for 7 years. That is a lie!. Make fool proof of your minitry.