Which one was saved, the one taken or the one left?

Sorry, wrong guess! Or at least I think it is the wrong guess. The bold faced conclusion may or may not be correct, we'll see. But thanks for all the definitions. Try again. Don't get sidetracked on this one, please, for I am not going down the BB detour, here, but what version or versions are you citing for Matthew 24:37-41, and whoever cited Luke 17:34-37?
Ed

 

Brother Brother Bob: //I think I have you figured out. You sit back and wait until
everyone has posted and then you research to find particular
scriptures to support any negative veiw about the subject and then you post.//

Ah, you make an 'A' in physical education
You have jumped to more conclusions than anybody else.

But have to give an 'F' in tact and and 'F' in CSIing techniques.

Can't you see i've been here on BB since Aug 2002. This was
just three months before I got kicked off RAPTURE READY.
I've been discussion eschatology on BUlletin boards since June 1984
(that is three months less than 22 Years. Some people say "but Ed,
the internet isn't THAT OLD" to which I say: 'I said BBs
not Internet, i've been almost 22 years arguing eschatology on
Bulletin Boards (bbs). Needless to say, I've already argued every
point of eschatology that can be argued MULTIPLE TIMES.
The ol' "who gets LEFT BEHIND" argument comes up 6-7 times a
year (about every two months).

Mel Miller: //I notice a Pre-Tribber criticizes you for finding
the Rapture in Matt.24:31!! Amazing!!//

Proves what i've been telling others.
I am a Baptist believer in PRiesthood of the Believer and
Soul SUfficiency. I dug my own Eschatology out of the
Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is like nobody else's eschatology. Generally it is
pre-trbulation rapture, pre-millinnial SC = second Coming of Jesus;
but it isn't from Darby and it ain't Millerism, and it isn't
from LeHaye. BTW, Even DeafPosttrib noted that most Pretribbers
beleive Matthew is for Jews and Matthew 24:31 is about the
post-tribulation gathering NOT the pre-tribulation gathering.

 

Sorry Brother Brother Bob, but I'm in several ongoing
conversations about Security of the Believer.
I will continue to preach eternal salvation
starts at the moment Jesus first saves us
and has no end. (so don't anybody
use phrases like
'you can't know you are saved until the end')

Let me tell a story from the early 4th century,
maybe 308. The rival emperor Docilian (sp?)
authorized killing of those who would not
burn a bit of incense. So his private police
force would round up some suspected Christians.
The REAL Christians would not worship this
man. But some in the group did put in incense
and praise the rival emperor. They were
all put to death: the Christians for not
worshiping the rival emperor, the others
for hanging out with Christians.

 

Jews wouldn't "listen" to Jesus's "Voice" when he was "physically" talking to them, and two thousand years later, they still won't listen to "his voice", the "Holy Ghost",

So what is going to make them "change their mind", all of the sudden???

And why are they "Blind" until the "fulness of the Gentiles" or Church age is over???

Interpret the following verse correctly and you'll understand.

Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (at/in the same time frame)

OT/God/Israel/fig tree
NT/Jesus/church/vine/fountain/fresh water
Trib/God/Israel/figs/salt water
MK/God/Israel/Jesus/church


The "TRINITY" explains the scriptures.

 

(Edward, Sir. Why did I find your post amusing, here? Read on to find out!)

The "guess" had to do with your own apparent "gift of knowledge" as to what my next question or point was going to be. Perhaps that particular "gift" could use just a wee bit of stirring up, for the fourth question is, regardless of - Well let's run over them again.

Comment #1. "Define saved." You did not actually 'define it' but gave two examples. Not exactly what I was looking for, but OK.

Question #2. "Where does the word "saved" occur in Matt. 24:38-41, which you cited, and Luke 17:34-37 (which eloidalmanutha actually cited)?" Your answer was actually here some definitions and an illustration cited of Noah.

Sorry! Wrong answer! The word "saved" does not occur in either passage.

Question #3. "What version or versions are you using, here?" You responded, "KJV" Good answer. Athough most any 'major' version, that I happen to be familiar with cited, would be a good answer.

Question #4. Despite your jumping to a conclusion, as EdEdSr mentioned, as you jumped into a one sentence, although in two-parts, sermonette on Noah and salvation by faith, and notwithstanding, I love you, too., as well, question four is "How do you manage to read "saved" into the passage at all?' Especially, when it is not found in the text, at all. This is interpretation, not statement from Scripture that either are "saved", for perhaps, that is not what the verses are speaking of in the first place.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Salvation is eternal. No matter what anybody says,
assume nothing. Check it up in your Bible. It is
very easy to be misled if you do not know your Bible
enough to refute the false prophet and the nonsense
doctrines that he tries sell to others.

 

And you have been wrong for 22 years!

 

Brother Brother Bob: //You will have to explain CSIing techniques,
maybe I got an A there too.//

CSI = Crime Scene Investigation, you knew, the hot TV
multi-series: The original CSI Los Vagas, CSI Miami, CSI New York,
NCSI (Naval CSI), etc. It was a humor

Brother Brother Bob: //I really have
a hard time understanding you at times.//

Sorry, I'll type slower

Brother Brother Bob: //You gave me an F in tact,
but I got you talking nicer,//

So, you have an 'A' in goal accomplishment.

Brother Brother Bob: //Oh, by the way, I also believe that
when you are saved it is forever if that is what you said.//

Very good. You know, of course, that I actually 'test the spirits'.
You passed. People who get all bent out of shape when somebody who
has no right to do so gives them an 'F' - they miss out on
at least two different levels.

Reminds me back in 92 when I was talking to this fellow who thought
he was 'bout as good as God. He figured that he really knew his Bible,
but he didn't have a clue. I'd quote the Bible, but put it in my
own words (not King James English) and not give the addy of the quote:
Version, Book, chapter, nor verse. So If he didn't like it, he would
argue with it. Everybody but him knew the Bible and realized he was
arguing against what the Bible says - he was clueless.

As for Luke whatever:33:
"33": Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;
and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Is a play on eternal and temporal:

Whosoever shall seek to save his life (temporal)
shall lose it (eternal); and whosoever shall lose his
life (temporal) shall preserve it (eternal).

While 'salvation' and 'saved' can refer to both the eternal
and temporal, obviously the eternal is most important.
So you can be unsaved to the temporal yet saved to the eternal

 

My late vote is the one left gets saved upon Christ's return if he/she is not already saved.

Luke is plain in that the one's taken are killed and fed to the birds. This is also described in Rev. 19:17-21.

This is why in Daniel 12:11-12 it says that:

"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a
thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days."

Because he/she (and this refers to the Jews) has been left to go into the Millennium where as described in Zech. 12:10 all the remaining remnant of Jews left will look on Him who they did pierce and know that Jesus is both Lord and their Messiah.

The remaining Gentiles will be judged according to what's written in Mt. 25 concerning the sheep and the goats to see if they get to go into the Millennium.

Of course any Jews that take the mark of the Beast will be taken with the rest and eaten by the birds.

 

On this we agree, at least.
Like Paul, I count not myself to have arrived...

However that has little to do ith my questions. I do thank you for mentioning parables. And I seem to recall you or someone referring to Matt. 24:38-41 as a parable. I suggest differently. The parable is that of the fig tree, found in verses 32-35, with accompanying exposition. I see this as a simile and as an illustration. The change comes with the words, but and also, and IMO, refers to the manner of His coming. Verses 40-42 refer to the time, and what happens. The ones taken are taken to what? Heaven? Could be. Need to know more. In the 'rapture'of the church? Nope! We do not yet know there is going to be any 'rapture of the church'. In fact, we do not even know much about ANY church, except that Jesus is going to build "My church." So the church is not particularly in view here. What is in view is the fourfold "division' that has just been presented; that of "travail", tribulation, great tribulation, and "after the tribulation". And one of the things to happen "immediately after the tribulation" is the coming of the "Son of Man" where he sends forth His angels and they gather His elect. So in this pasage, His elect are the one's gathered in this context, for this purpose. Are they the church? No! Therefore this cannot be referring to the rapture of the church. Thes are trib. saints, as we shall see.
This is who they are referring to, IMO. They are "the saved", hence they are the ones taken. The point I was trying to make, with my questions earlier is that it is not because they are taken, that they are saved; rather they are 'taken', because they are already saved. Repeating:

"Maybe you have a ways to go yet Ed? "

I've already agreed to this. Care to join me on the trip?

Ed