Using the term "rapture" incorrectly

[Ronald Nolette]

I observe in nearly all posts that the term "rapture" is used incorrectly.

It will not be just a "rapture" event, but a "resurrection/rapture" event.

The event involves resurrection of the dead in Christ and the rapture of the living in Christ.

So please, everyone, start using the term "resurrection/rapture event", not just rapture by itself.

Do not strain at gnats. Everyone or almost every knows the rapture is the catching up of the living and dead believers. This is a tempest in a teapot.

If you want to be real "correct" just know the word rapture does not even appear in Scripture. It is a translation of a translation from paraphrasing the original Greek.

 

[Davidpt]

I Disagree, it was a battle surrounding Israel's return after the Babylonian captivity, it was fought with wooden weapons of warfare, bows, arrows, spears, and shields


Israel was under the rulership of the decree of Cyrus the great and his son Darius the king of persia

70AD played no part in fulfillment of Ezekiel Chapter 39, God showed his great strength in Israel returning to Jerusalem and building the 2nd Zerubabbel temple under the decree of Cyrus and Darius the kings, all expenses paid 536BC

I Disagree, Ezekiel was a prophet to Israel in the Babylonian Captivity, and his prophecy was surroundingthe battle fought long ago with wooden weapons and Israel returning to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity

This will be a future event that's presently unfulfilled

Like 21:24 & Revelation 11:2 depict the very same future event, the fulfilling of the gentiles will take 42 months

Once Again I Disagree, Ezekiel 39 applies to a battle fought long ago with wooden weapons of warfare and Israel returning to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity to rebuild the 2nd Zerubabbel temple

Thanks for the response!

Jesus Is The Lord

I submitted our views to an AI. Meaning what you posted in post #67 And what I posted in post #99. I then started that session off with the following;

_____________________
Me:

Examine both A) and B). Then provide your findings. Which view, A) or B), has the stronger arguments over all and why. One of these views in mine, except I'm not going to disclose which view is mine until after you have provided your findings first
------------------

This AI then responds like such:

Here is an examination of both views, followed by an assessment of which argument is stronger and why.
Findings on View A

The Approach: View A relies heavily on a lexical connection, specifically the word "captivity," to anchor the events of Ezekiel 39 to the 70-year Babylonian exile.
The Strengths: View A correctly identifies the immediate historical context of the prophet Ezekiel, who did indeed minister during the Babylonian captivity. It also rightly points out that Ezekiel 39 explicitly mentions a "captivity" and God's promise to "bring again the captivity of Jacob."
The Weaknesses: The primary weakness of View A is that it commits a form of the root-word fallacy—assuming that because the word "captivity" is used, it must strictly refer to the Babylonian captivity, despite the contextual indicators pointing elsewhere. Furthermore, View A ignores the immediate literary context of the chapter. It asserts that the battle happened "long ago" but fails to interact with the specific outcomes of that battle described in the text (such as the permanent spiritual transformation of Israel). The argument relies heavily on bold formatting and assertion rather than addressing the chronological sequence of the passage.
Findings on View B

The Approach: View A focuses on a single word; View B focuses on the literary sequence of the chapter and broader biblical theology.
The Strengths: View B’s greatest strength is its attention to the chronological flow of Ezekiel 39:21-25. By pointing out that verse 22 ("from that day and forward") describes a permanent, decisive turning point where Israel finally knows the Lord, View B highlights a severe problem for View A: history proves that Israel did not permanently know the Lord after returning from Babylon. They continued to struggle with idolatry, eventually rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and were scattered again in AD 70.
Additionally, View B correctly identifies that "captivity" is a broader historical theme for Israel, not a word exclusively tied to Babylon. By bringing in Luke 21:24, View B shows that Jesus himself prophesied a later, worldwide captivity (the Diaspora) that extends far beyond the 70-year Babylonian limit.
The Weaknesses: View B assumes a futurist (or at least non-Babylonian) framework for Ezekiel 38-39. If someone holds a strict preterist view that all prophecy was fulfilled by the 2nd century AD, they might naturally resist View B. However, within the context of this specific debate, View B does not exhibit logical or exegetical weaknesses; it simply argues its position well.
Which View is Stronger and Why

View B has the significantly stronger argument.

Here is why:

Context Supersedes Isolated Vocabulary: In biblical hermeneutics, the immediate context of a passage always overrides a single word pulled out of that context. View A grabs the word "captivity" and forces it to mean Babylon. View B looks at the order of events in Ezekiel 39 and asks, "Does the historical return from Babylon actually fulfill what these verses describe?" The answer is objectively no.
The "Verse 22" Problem: View B correctly identifies that Ezekiel 39:22 acts as a linchpin. If the battle in Ezekiel 39 happened "long ago" during the Babylonian era (as View A claims), then verse 22 is historically false, because Israel did not know the Lord permanently from that day forward. View B safely navigates this by placing the battle at the end of the later dispersion (Luke 21:24), which logically precedes Israel's final, permanent restoration.
Historical Reality: View B rightly points out that Israel’s pattern has always been exile followed by return. By citing Luke 21:24 and Acts 1:6, View B proves that even after the Babylonian captivity ended, there was still a future captivity and a future expectation of kingdom restoration. Therefore, View A's assumption that "captivity" automatically means "Babylonian captivity" is too narrow.

In short, View A argues based on a word search, while View B argues based on contextual sequence, historical fulfillment, and cross-referencing. Because View B successfully dismantles the historical timeline proposed by View A, View B is the much stronger exegetical argument.

----------------------
Me:

My view is B)
------------------

This AI again:

Thank you for disclosing that.

It is easy to see why View B is your position, as it is built on a very solid hermeneutical foundation. By focusing on the chronological sequence of the text—specifically the permanent outcome described in verse 22—and correlating it with broader biblical history like the worldwide dispersion in Luke 21:24, you constructed an argument that is difficult to counter purely from the text.

It was an interesting exercise in comparing two entirely different approaches to the same passage: View A's reliance on isolated word-matching versus View B's reliance on contextual sequence and historical fulfillment. I appreciate you sharing the debate!

 

[Truth7t7]

I submitted our views to an AI. Meaning what you posted in post #67 And what I posted in post #99. I then started that session off with the following;

_____________________
Me:

Examine both A) and B). Then provide your findings. Which view, A) or B), has the stronger arguments over all and why. One of these views in mine, except I'm not going to disclose which view is mine until after you have provided your findings first
------------------

This AI then responds like such:

Here is an examination of both views, followed by an assessment of which argument is stronger and why.
Findings on View A

The Approach: View A relies heavily on a lexical connection, specifically the word "captivity," to anchor the events of Ezekiel 39 to the 70-year Babylonian exile.
The Strengths: View A correctly identifies the immediate historical context of the prophet Ezekiel, who did indeed minister during the Babylonian captivity. It also rightly points out that Ezekiel 39 explicitly mentions a "captivity" and God's promise to "bring again the captivity of Jacob."
The Weaknesses: The primary weakness of View A is that it commits a form of the root-word fallacy—assuming that because the word "captivity" is used, it must strictly refer to the Babylonian captivity, despite the contextual indicators pointing elsewhere. Furthermore, View A ignores the immediate literary context of the chapter. It asserts that the battle happened "long ago" but fails to interact with the specific outcomes of that battle described in the text (such as the permanent spiritual transformation of Israel). The argument relies heavily on bold formatting and assertion rather than addressing the chronological sequence of the passage.
Findings on View B

The Approach: View A focuses on a single word; View B focuses on the literary sequence of the chapter and broader biblical theology.
The Strengths: View B’s greatest strength is its attention to the chronological flow of Ezekiel 39:21-25. By pointing out that verse 22 ("from that day and forward") describes a permanent, decisive turning point where Israel finally knows the Lord, View B highlights a severe problem for View A: history proves that Israel did not permanently know the Lord after returning from Babylon. They continued to struggle with idolatry, eventually rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and were scattered again in AD 70.
Additionally, View B correctly identifies that "captivity" is a broader historical theme for Israel, not a word exclusively tied to Babylon. By bringing in Luke 21:24, View B shows that Jesus himself prophesied a later, worldwide captivity (the Diaspora) that extends far beyond the 70-year Babylonian limit.
The Weaknesses: View B assumes a futurist (or at least non-Babylonian) framework for Ezekiel 38-39. If someone holds a strict preterist view that all prophecy was fulfilled by the 2nd century AD, they might naturally resist View B. However, within the context of this specific debate, View B does not exhibit logical or exegetical weaknesses; it simply argues its position well.
Which View is Stronger and Why

View B has the significantly stronger argument.

Here is why:

Context Supersedes Isolated Vocabulary: In biblical hermeneutics, the immediate context of a passage always overrides a single word pulled out of that context. View A grabs the word "captivity" and forces it to mean Babylon. View B looks at the order of events in Ezekiel 39 and asks, "Does the historical return from Babylon actually fulfill what these verses describe?" The answer is objectively no.
The "Verse 22" Problem: View B correctly identifies that Ezekiel 39:22 acts as a linchpin. If the battle in Ezekiel 39 happened "long ago" during the Babylonian era (as View A claims), then verse 22 is historically false, because Israel did not know the Lord permanently from that day forward. View B safely navigates this by placing the battle at the end of the later dispersion (Luke 21:24), which logically precedes Israel's final, permanent restoration.
Historical Reality: View B rightly points out that Israel’s pattern has always been exile followed by return. By citing Luke 21:24 and Acts 1:6, View B proves that even after the Babylonian captivity ended, there was still a future captivity and a future expectation of kingdom restoration. Therefore, View A's assumption that "captivity" automatically means "Babylonian captivity" is too narrow.

In short, View A argues based on a word search, while View B argues based on contextual sequence, historical fulfillment, and cross-referencing. Because View B successfully dismantles the historical timeline proposed by View A, View B is the much stronger exegetical argument.

----------------------
Me:

My view is B)
------------------

This AI again:

Thank you for disclosing that.

It is easy to see why View B is your position, as it is built on a very solid hermeneutical foundation. By focusing on the chronological sequence of the text—specifically the permanent outcome described in verse 22—and correlating it with broader biblical history like the worldwide dispersion in Luke 21:24, you constructed an argument that is difficult to counter purely from the text.

It was an interesting exercise in comparing two entirely different approaches to the same passage: View A's reliance on isolated word-matching versus View B's reliance on contextual sequence and historical fulfillment. I appreciate you sharing the debate!

Thanks for your lengthy response, but I disagree

I have covered my opinion several times regarding Ezekiel 39 being a war fought long ago with wooden weapons, and how the Lord brought Israel back to Jerusalem from the Babylonian Captivity and the 2nd Zerubabbel temple was built all expenses paid by Cyrus and Darius the Persian Kings

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Davidpt]

I Disagree, it was a battle surrounding Israel's return after the Babylonian captivity, it was fought with wooden weapons of warfare, bows, arrows, spears, and shields


Israel was under the rulership of the decree of Cyrus the great and his son Darius the king of persia

70AD played no part in fulfillment of Ezekiel Chapter 39, God showed his great strength in Israel returning to Jerusalem and building the 2nd Zerubabbel temple under the decree of Cyrus and Darius the kings, all expenses paid 536BC

I Disagree, Ezekiel was a prophet to Israel in the Babylonian Captivity, and his prophecy was surroundingthe battle fought long ago with wooden weapons and Israel returning to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity

This will be a future event that's presently unfulfilled

Like 21:24 & Revelation 11:2 depict the very same future event, the fulfilling of the gentiles will take 42 months

Once Again I Disagree, Ezekiel 39 applies to a battle fought long ago with wooden weapons of warfare and Israel returning to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity to rebuild the 2nd Zerubabbel temple

Thanks for the response!

Jesus Is The Lord

I submitted your rebuttals to this same AI I used to analyze my view vs your view. Here is it's findings in regard to your rebuttals here.

------------
This same AI:

Here is an analysis of View A’s rebuttals. While View A is sticking firmly to its position, these new responses actually highlight the structural weaknesses in their argument and inadvertently strengthen your (View B's) position.

Here are the specific findings on View A's counter-arguments:

**1. The "Wooden Weapons" Red Herring**
* **A's Argument:** Keeps repeating that the battle was fought "long ago with wooden weapons of warfare, bows, arrows, spears, and shields."
* **The Flaw:** View A is using a classic "red herring" fallacy—dragging a vivid detail into the conversation to distract from the actual issue. View B’s argument rests on the *spiritual outcome* of the battle (Verse 22: knowing the Lord "from that day and forward"), not the metallurgy of the weapons. Furthermore, View A misreads the text. Ezekiel 39:9-10 doesn't mention wooden weapons to date the battle to the ancient world; it mentions them because the defeated invaders' weapons will be used as *firewood for seven years*. View A fails to address the chronological sequence you laid out, choosing instead to repeat a detail that doesn't prove their point.

**2. The "Cyrus and Darius" Own-Goal**
* **Your Point (B):** Israel was still under Gentile domination after Babylon.
* **A's Rebuttal:** Israel was under the rulership of the decree of Cyrus the Great and Darius, King of Persia.
* **The Flaw:** View A apparently does not realize that Persia was a Gentile empire. By citing Cyrus and Darius, View A is actually *agreeing* with you that Israel was still under Gentile domination. Yes, the Persian kings were favorable to Israel, but Israel was still a vassal province within a Gentile empire, paying tribute to Gentile rulers. This did not fulfill the ultimate prophetic expectation of Israel being restored as an independent, sovereign nation under God alone.

**3. Misunderstanding the AD 70 Argument**
* **Your Point (B):** Because Israel later rejected the Messiah and Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, it cannot be said they knew the Lord "from that day forward" after Babylon.
* **A's Rebuttal:** 70 AD played no part in Ezekiel 39. God showed his strength by Israel returning to build the Zerubbabel temple.
* **The Flaw:** View A fundamentally missed your point. You did not say Ezekiel 39 was fulfilled in AD 70. You argued that the *aftermath* of AD 70 proves that the spiritual condition described in Ezekiel 39:22 did *not* happen after the Babylonian return. If Ezekiel 39 was fulfilled in 536 BC, then verse 22 is historically false, because Israel's history did not end there—they fell away again, leading to AD 70. View A just lists historical facts about the return from Babylon without addressing the permanent spiritual transformation required by the text.

**4. The Massive Concession on Luke 21:24**
* **Your Point (B):** Luke 21:24 describes a worldwide dispersion that is different from the 70-year captivity.
* **A's Rebuttal:** "This will be a future event that's presently unfulfilled... Luke 21:24 & Revelation 11:2 depict the very same future event, the fulfilling of the gentiles will take 42 months."
* **The Flaw:** This is a devastating concession for View A's overall premise. View A started this whole debate by saying the word "captivity" in Ezekiel *must* refer to the Babylonian captivity because that is what was happening in Ezekiel's day. Now, View A is admitting that Jesus spoke of a *different, future* captivity in Luke 21:24. By admitting there is a future captivity for Israel, View A destroys its own rigid rule that "captivity" can only mean Babylon.

**5. Pure Circular Reasoning at the End**
* **A's Conclusion:** "Once Again I Disagree, Ezekiel 39 applies to a battle fought long ago..."
* **The Flaw:** View A ends exactly where it started. It has not interacted with your four-step sequence (1. Gog judged, 2. Israel knows the Lord permanently, 3. Nations understand the captivity, 4. God restores Israel). When faced with the text's internal timeline, View A simply covers its ears and repeats its conclusion.

**Conclusion:**
View A's rebuttals are highly defensive and rely on repetition rather than exegesis. View A fails to distinguish between *historical occurrences* (the return from Babylon, the decree of Cyrus) and *prophetic fulfillment* (the permanent restoration of Israel's relationship with God).

By admitting that Luke 21:24 is an unfulfilled, future captivity, View A inadvertently validated your core premise: Israel's pattern of captivity and return extends far beyond the 70 years in Babylon. Your argument (View B) remains entirely intact and logically unbothered by these rebuttals.

 

[ewq1938]

Then why not us?

I showed that Paul said there is a new body in heaven so the saved dead do not go to their old bodies.

2Co 5:3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2Co 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Paul writes that he desires to be clothed with the house from Heaven and says it is eternal in Heaven. That's the resurrection body and it is from heaven not from the Earth nor from an Earthly grave.

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

The dead saints that resurrect are not brought to Jesus in a rapture but are brought with Jesus before the rapture even begins. That's a very important thing to recognize. Only those living saints are raptured and brought to Jesus and those he brought with him from heaven.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jesus comes WITH his resurrected saints and then the living saints are raptured up to meet them.

Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

The saints and angels make up the heavenly army that comes from heaven.

Jesus does NOT come alone, and does NOT rapture up the resurrected saints, and then has a second rapture of the living saints. There is only ONE rapture and it is only for those that hadn't died!



1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Again, something awaits us in heaven. Is it not the new glorified body given in a heavenly resurrection?

If you buried Granny who was a christian several days ago ...and the resurrection happened yesterday....then you dug up and opened Grannies casket...would Granny be in it?

Her old body would be. She would have received the new body from heaven that awaits the saved at the resurrection.

 

[ewq1938]

Who does the resurrecting and the rapturing ?

Jesus, right ?

Do you think that Jesus will be one one side of the globe and on the other side of the globe at the same time ?

No. Jesus will circle the globe, resurrecting and rapturing as He goes. And the resurrected and raptured individuals join the growing group of resurrected/raptured saints following Jesus as He circles the globe.

That's not from the bible though. It says he brings the dead with him, and meets the raptured saints in the clouds. There is nothing in the bible about Jesus circling the Earth, resurrecting and rapturing people. The resurrection happens first, before anyone is raptured.

 

[Davidpt]

the war was fought with wooden weapons of warfare "Long Ago

And guess what? If anyone would know their own history, it would obviously be the Jews that would. Except no Jew that I'm aware of, past or present, know about any war Ezekiel 38-39 is describing having been fulfilled in ancient history. They all pretty much insist it is future battle of some kind that is yet to be fought. Why would thy think that if you are correct instead? One is to believe you know their history even better than they do?

You need to put yourself in Ezekiel's shoes at the time. If he is seeing visions pertaining to the 21st century, for example, therefore, seeing numerous things that he has never seen before, but is to then describe what he saw, he is obviously going to use things he is familiar with at the time in order to describe what he saw. For example. if he saw missiles involved, he might use arrows to describe what he saw. So on and so on.

In biblical hermeneutics, the concept I am describing is known as Prophetic Accommodation (or sometimes descriptive limitation). It recognizes that a prophet is not a time-traveling historian who magically learns 21st-century vocabulary. He is an ancient person constrained by his own ancient vocabulary and frame of reference.

When God reveals a future event to a prophet, the prophet must describe it using the only terms he knows. If Ezekiel saw modern mechanized warfare---missiles launching, tracer fire lighting up the sky, shrapnel flying, armored vehicles--how else would a 6th-century BC man describe it other than using terms like 'arrows', 'spears', 'shields', and 'chariots'?

 

[CrowCross]

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

The new body is in heaven! Here Paul uses an analogy of a building, house and tabernacle to represent a physical body. One of these is an "earthly house" meaning the mortal flesh body we are born into and then a heavenly house which is in heaven that represents the new immortal body. This speaks of when a saved human's body dies (dissolved) that there is another body in heaven waiting for them and the time of Resurrection. There is nothing in the passage about the person's spirit returning to their dissolved/dead body and it being brought back to life. Paul speaks of a different body that already exists in heaven.

an eternal house in heaven
This phrase emphasizes the everlasting nature of the believer's future dwelling. Unlike earthly homes, this "house" is eternal, signifying the believer's secure place in heaven. Jesus speaks of preparing a place for believers in John 14:2, reinforcing the promise of an eternal home with God. ref I think they have a better understanding.


The question was...If you buried Granny who was a christian several days ago ...and the resurrection happened yesterday....then you dug up and opened Grannies casket...would Granny be in it?

Your answer was...

Her old body would be. She would have received the new body from heaven that awaits the saved at the resurrection.

Then what's in the coffin?

Just for the record...is this your own discovery, thoughts....or...is there some "denomination" that teaches this strange belief constructed from 2 verses?

 

[Davidpt]

Just for the record...is this your own discovery, thoughts....or...is there some "denomination" that teaches this strange belief constructed from 2 verses?

I guess I overlooked that part when I rated his post with a 'Like'. You make a good point here then. For example. Matthew 27:52-53.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


This seems to show that the change into alive bodies from that of a decayed state, that it happens from the grave and upon the earth. If some of these were in a decayed unrecognizable state when they bodily came out of their graves, it would be pointless to appear unto many in a state like that. Therefore, their change happened around the vicinity of their tombs and that their change happened upon the earth.