Rapture Question

[LaGrange]

Again, we see in Scripture that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb takes place at Christ's return. It is not an ongoing event.

Just as the Supper of the Great God is not Ezekiel 39:4-5; Revelation 19:17-18). Death is continual and carrion fowl have feasted on the flesh of men throughout history, but we don't see an ongoing event because of the similarity

My Comment: In prophecy, Dan 12:11 says, “And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days.” The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is this “Continual sacrifice”.
Circumstantial evidence, that the perpetual sacrifice was continuing, would include Heb 13:10, 1 Cor 11:23-34, 1 Cor 5:7-8, 1 Cor 10:16-21.

This verse shows the Last Supper is a sacrifice and was instituted into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

“Shed” is the word Christ used at the last supper which shows it was sacrificial in nature and when he said “do this in commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), Christ instituted the sacrifice and it was continual. “Commemoration” is a sacrificial word. (Commemoration = Remembrance = Greek – Anamnesis = Strong’s #364) Luke 22:20 (“This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood…”) ties the sacrifice as the sacrifice of the New Testament. There’s so much more.

I would suggest that Acts 1:4-8 would be an event that did not take place on Sunday. We would have to get one of the scholars to look at the calendar, though, lol. This took place not many days hence, the day being Pentecost. That would be an interesting thing to track down, though. I'm sure someone more familiar than I could determine whether this celebration was on a Tuesday or not.

My Comment: I understand Pentecost was on a Sunday. I don’t know everything about this. During the 40 days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension, He appeared to many people and, I’m sure, every day but it seems that He appeared to his apostles on Sundays.

There is a difference from the/a Day of the Lord and the Lord's Day. The Lord's Day is what we call Sunday, but the Day of the Lord is a visitation from God and usually for the purpose of judgment.

My Comment: I agree that the “Day of the Lord” is Judgement Day at the very end (2 Pet 3:10, Obad 15-21, Zech 14:11-12). In my minority view, I can also see a Thousand Year Reign in there too although “the day” is the last day or one day and not a thousand and seven years. I also understand that the Lord’s Day is Sunday but, in eternity, every day is the Lord’s Day. What I was trying to show in my previous post (post #19) was that the Sacrifice (Marriage Supper of the Lamb) is continuing here on earth right now and in heaven at the same time and it will go on for eternity. On the Lord’s Day in the Holy Sacrifice and on the Day of the Lord, Christ reveals His Glorfied Body!

mmaterial to God in regards to the temporal.

Believe me, a thousand years is a thousand years, here. And while one day might seem like a thousand years to us sometimes, lol, it is still a 24-hour-period, and not a thousand years.

My Comment: I answered this above but I have another question to ask you:

2 Pet 3:8 But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2 Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence and the elements shall be melted with heat and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burnt up.

Darrell, let me ask you this: By “Day of the Lord” do you mean “one day” or do you mean a “Thousand Years”? I ask because I have seen where some think the time from the Rapture to the very end is the “Day of the Lord” (2 Pet 3:10, Is 13:6,9, 1 Thess 5:2-4). I understand the Seven years of Tribulation is judgement but not the Thousand Year Reign. It seems that these verses say it comes as a “thief in the night” or suddenly which suggests “one day” and not a thousand years. It even says the “Day” of the Lord and not “days”. I know you probably see this exact day as the Rapture but I see it either as the very last day or, in my minority view, as right before the Thousand Year Reign. Also, notice: In 2 Pet 3:10 it says “in which the heavens pass away”. To the straight Amillennialist, this proves that this is the very end. In my minority view, I can see a different interpretation. I know this is a little complicated.

 

[LaGrange]

Acts 2:17-20 King James Version

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:


Note "before" the great and notable Day of the Lord."

Prophecy can have multiple fulfillment. We see a partial fulfillment in Peter's (and our) day but there is a day yet to come that will be the Day of the Lord.

Again, that day will be a day of visitation and judgment. The sun has not yet to to darkness, not the moon into blood.

I do understand the connection you are trying to make, though. I understand your point, that is.

My Comment: Ok.

It may be a Sunday when the Marriage Supper of the Lamb commences, but it will be on a particular Sunday in the future.

My Comment: Of course I disagree as I’ve explained and I know you have too.

That I will agree with: I think when that Supper commences it will have application to Heaven (where the Body of Christ will be) and to earth, where Restored Israel will be (note: Restored Israel will be in the Body of Christ when they are born again but that doesn't nullify her distinction as Israel, as noted in Revelation and pointed out in earlier posts).

My Comment: We don’t see Israel as a separate people as being restored but, rather, the restoration of the “New Israel” which is the Catholic Church. At the beginning of the Great Tribulation, the Church will be a remnant but, at the 3 1/2 year mark, the “Restoration” will begin with the Two Witnesses. This is when the Jews will come into the church. By the time the Two Witnesses are killed, the Church will be strong. Christ, through the Church, will be able to overthrow the Antichrist. Christ will reign through His Church in the Eucharist for a thousand years or whatever the length. Christ is reigning “right now” through the Eucharist but He will reign in a fully restored church and state during the thousand year reign. This fits in with our Doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King - NO separation of church and state. Separation of duties only. Restoration of the true practice (Traditions, that is, Apostolic Tradition) of the Faith is what is needed (2 Thess 2:14). This is Restoration, not reformation. Notice: The context of this verse is set in the end times.

Israel will not be offering animal sacrifices in the thousand year reign. I’m not sure if you think this but I’ve seen this a lot. If they do, it will be against God. The Jews will be received into the Church through the Two Witnesses and will participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Christ will rein in the Catholic Church in Israel and not Rome. Israel will be the New Rome.

I’ll stop here. I know, It’s a lot to digest. I’ll have to explain things a little bit at a time. I know this post is going to get me in a lot f trouble! Lol

symbolic only, here on earth. In Heaven we will see Him in His glorified body. Two different issues.

My Comment: I’ve explained this elsewhere so I won’t do it here. I will say this: When you talk of Israel offering sacrifice again (I don’t know if you do believe this but, for sake of argument, I’ll assume you do) in the temple during the thousand year reign, you are recognizing that sacrifice is being offered in heaven (Marriage Supper of the Lamb) and on earth (Temple Sacrifice) at the SAME TIME! If you could see the Eucharist as the sacrifice on earth, you would be able to accept the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints like in the Nicene Creed! Because you don’t accept it you somehow see Temple Sacrifice as a positive thing! Do you really think God is going to be happy with that? I’m sure you see this in the scriptures but maybe they could be interpreted to prove the Eucharist? I’m not sure which ones you use. If Christ is on earth (Second Coming) during the Thousand Year Reign, why would you offer Temple Sacrifice? Makes no sense. Christ will rule through the Eucharist and the Second Coming comes at the very end.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 King James Version

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.


I don't see anything about those in Heaven and on earth "seeing Christ's glorified body at the same time" here.

Again, both Christ and Paul taught that Communion is a memorial, not a literal event. Just as Passover was a literal event the first time, and a memorial afterward.

My Comment: Luke 24:30-31(they recognized Jesus in the Breaking of Bread), John 20:26-28 (this was while they were at the Eucharistic Sacrifice on Sunday)

In both of these examples, Christ was in His glorified body and tied to the Eucharist.

 

[LaGrange]

. I know you probably see this exact day as the Rapture but I see it either as the very last day or, in my minority view, as right before the Thousand Year Reign.

Correction to Post #101

I said, “ I know you probably see this exact day as the Rapture but I see it either as the very last day or, in my minority view, as right before the Thousand Year Reign”.

My Comment: The “Day of the Lord” is the very last day (General Judgement) and not before the Thousand Year Reign. It also can be the day of your death (Particular Judgement - 1 Cor 3:13). I’ve said this more than once in prior posts and even in this post (third comment). You make mistakes when you’re tired or in a hurry.

 

[LaGrange]

Agreed. We will see Him when we die physically, if we do not remain until the Rapture.




Agreed.




You can't see anything literally in an invisible manner, lol, because you aren't seeing something that is invisible.

Not trying to be a wiseguy, LaGrange, just pointing this out.

When we celebrate Communion we do not literally see the body of Christ.

Secondly, the Bread and Wine are symbolic of His broken and dead body, not his glorified body.


Continued...

My Comment: Ok. Lol I understand. Of course, I disagree but either you believe or you don’t just like the disciples who walked away because they did not believe in the Eucharist [John 6:61-67 (60-66)]. You know Darrell, not trying to be a wise guy either, I’m really not, but I’ve always heard dispensationalists believe in the literal interpretation of scripture more than anyone else when it comes to the end times, but I have to disagree. It seems like dispensationalists believe everything is “symbolic”! I’m being funny and exaggerating some. Lol

 

[LaGrange]

Kind of hard to find an unbeliever like Thomas, an unregenerate man, as part of the Bride of Christ:


John 20:24-28 King James Version

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.


Some confuse this...


John 20:21-23 King James Version

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


With the Coming of the Comforter on Pentecost, but forget that the Spirit could not come if Christ did not return to Heaven:


John 16:7 King James Version

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


So we know Thomas is unregenerate because he has not received the Spirit, as well as the fact that he is denying Christ's Resurrection here. Christ proves it to Thomas by showing him that His body is literal, and can be touched and felt.

Christ breathing upon them does not nullify His Own teaching, and we can see that He tells them later that they will be "not many days" in Jerusalem before they receive the Spirit:


Acts 1:4-5 King James Version

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

My Comment: This is Dispensationalism. This would mean that none of the apostles were believers because Pentecost hadn’t come yet. Thomas doubted which means he did not disbelieve totally. After Christ appeared to him, he did believe. Believing was a matter of degree. So, did Thomas believe when he said “My Lord and my God”? If he wasn’t a believer before he said this wasn’t he a believer right after? It sounds like you’re saying he wasn’t a believer or a Christian until Pentecost. Not sure if that is what you mean. Scripture says otherwise. Thomas and the other Apostles had received the Spirit (Baptism - John 3:22 - see note below*) and they are receiving the Spirit again because Christ says, “receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22). This shows that they received the Holy Ghost before Pentecost. They receive the Spirit again here (John 20:22) because this is a “different” sacrament. They are receiving the power to forgive sins which has to do the Sacrament of Penance (John 20:23). This is a charism or Gift of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 12:4 ff). In Baptism you receive the Holy Ghost one time (Eph 4:5) but in the other sacraments you receive more or the fullness of the Spirit (Eph 4:11 - more of the Spirit for the Gifts in the Church). Same with Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Acts 19:6). Confirmation is receiving the “Fullness” of the Spirit for perseverance. Notice in Heb 6:2 is says the plural “Baptisms”. “Baptisms” refers to both Baptism and Confirmation. Confirmation is the sacrament that equates to the fullness of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Once the apostles received this “Fullness” they didn’t run anymore. They had the courage to die for the Faith. You have to understand the difference between a Sacrament and a Charism or Gift of the Holy Ghost. I cannot write everything here on this subject.

*John 3:22 - Scripture is silent on when the apostles were baptized. I think it could be implied here in this verse. Could be implied somewhere else. Anyway, we know they were because Jesus baptized (John 3:22) and He instituted the sacrament when He ordained the apostles to baptize (Matt 28:19). Of course, before Matt 28 they were already baptizing.

For those that think the Baptism is an empowerment, or the filling of the Holy Ghost, Peter makes it clear it is not:


Acts 11:13-18 King James Version

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Peter makes it clear the Baptism with the Holy Ghost takes place at salvation, and in fact, is salvation.

Cornelius was saved at that time, received the Gift, and was granted repentance unto life when he was baptized with the holy Ghost.


So while I understand the correlation you are trying to make, it simply doesn't agree with Scripture. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb takes place at a specific point in time, and that we see Sunday as a special day, and "bread broken" in one of the events, that doesn't, in my view, justify a correlation to the Marriage Supper.

My Comment: Cornelius was Baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 10:48 when it says he was Baptized in “the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Through this Baptism Cornelius received remission of sins (sounds like the gift in John 20:22-23) when it says “In His NAME” (Acts 10:43). Matt 28:19 says “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: BAPTIZING them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and OF THE HOLY GHOST.” Just to make this clear, the outpouring of the Spirit in Act 10:44-46 is a “Gift of the Holy Ghost” (notice them Speaking in Tongues in v46). You are not saved or justified by the charismatic gifts but they lead to justification. Justification comes with Baptism in Acts 10:43,48. This is why Peter Baptized. Once he saw they already had Faith, he baptized them. Faith is not enough. Faith leads to justification. Even the devils believed (James 2:19). Faith is a Gift (1 Cor 12:9), a Fruit (Gal 5:23) and a virtue (Ex: Rom 5:1 in that it is a power that leads to justification). Right in Acts 2, at the time of Pentecost, they exhorted everyone to be Baptized in Acts 2:38, “But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

This all means that those at the Sunday Sacrifice of the Mass (John 20:19) are at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This might help: You cannot be in mortal sin to receive Christ in the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27-29). Only those in the white linen of Justification (Sanctifying Grace) can receive (Apoc 19:8). This proves that the Marriage Supper is going on here right now as well as in heaven.

 

[Walter]

Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Scott Hahn's book: 'The Lambs Supper' makes it abundantly clear that the Mass is described as a pledge and an anticipation: it is “a pledge of the life to come”. The mass is truly 'heaven on earth'.

My devotion and commitment to Jesus to bring others to know him and for them to make them known since I found the Catholic Faith has increased ten fold since realizing and participating daily in what Jesus gave in this beloved meal.

We know in Acts 2 that Christians were 'breaking bread' daily in the Eucharist. I don't know any other churches that are doing that today other than the Catholic Church.

 

[LaGrange]

But you don't examine Christ's literal glorified body at Mass to disprove unbelief, right?

You already believe He has been raised from the dead, right?

You aren't examining His hands and side, Right? You are memorializing His death. The Blood represents His life, the bread represents His body, and twain represent one thing: His death. That is what we remember when we partake of Communion.

Thomas was an unbeliever and demanded proof. No one legitimately observing Communion is an unregenerate unbeliever like Thomas was.

2 Cor 5:16 Wherefore henceforth, we know no man according to the flesh. And if we have known Christ according to the flesh: but now we know him so no longer. (DRV)

My Comment: St. Thomas the Apostle was already willing to die for Christ (John 11:17). It’s possible he believed Christ would resurrect but didn’t think it had happened yet. Just a thought. I have a book on dispensationalism (“Things That Differ” by Pastor Cornelius Stam) that uses John 20:27 as proof that the Apostles did not know Christ (pp 182-183). The book uses 2 Cor 5:16 to back this up and say they didn’t recognized Jesus as savior (I think this is what he is saying) while He was in the flesh and, therefore, this verse is the dividing line for a new dispensation. Not true. What Paul is doing in 2 Cor 5:16 is looking back on his conversion and the other apostle’s conversion. Here’s what Paul, in this verse, is saying, “We no longer look at men according to the world’s standards but as God sees them. If we knew Christ as a man, friend or relative, it is nothing in comparison to knowing of Him as Saviour.” He is preaching through his letters to the Corinthians. Paul continues this thought in the next verse when he refers to living a new way of life in the Spirit. We are a “New Creation”. Paul is saying that knowing Christ as Saviour changed their life. Christ revealed Himself in degrees and the Apostles believed in degrees. We all do. When I was 5 years old I believed in Christ but now I believe in Christ in a deeper way. Same with Paul and the Apostles. Catholics are always asked how many “Works” do you have to do to be saved? I say, How much Faith do you have to have to be saved? I agree you have to believe in the resurrection now but, when Thomas doubted, it had just happened. Even if you single Thomas out for doubting Christ’s resurrection, the other Apostles weren’t accused of that. You can’t lump them all under a previous dispensation.

But you haven't presented what I would call a proper Biblical Presentation that supports the view, or addresses the objections raised.

Of course, that is just my opinion, and I admit I am biased,

My Comment: I think I have. I have spoken on the Communion of Saints. I’ve talked about Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Rom 8:35-39, John 15, etc. We could talk more on it. I brought it up because I think it plays an important part in eschatology.

And occurs at a specific time

My Comment: Wasn’t Ephesians written after Pentecost? Doesn’t Eph 5:29 speak of the Church in the “Church Age”? Remember me saying the “Marriage” in the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” is the marriage between Christ and His CHURCH? (Post #19) Christ’s CHURCH exists right now. If Christ’s Church exists right now then the marriage exists right now. If the Marriage exists right now then the Marriage Supper exists right now.

We are identified with Christ (not each other) in Communion, just as we are in water baptism.

We are united to Christ by being placed in Him (The Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which takes place at salvation (Acts 11:13-18)), and God (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) coming to dwell in us, making His abode in us.

Just as the Eternal Indwelling and Eternal Union have a point in time when that began, even so the Marriage Supper has a specific point in time when that commences, at Christ's return at the end of the Tribulation.

My Comment: What you are saying is that “Identified” means nothing happened. “United” means something happened. Pentecost is where it happened and Baptism is where it didn’t happen. OK. It’s hard to talk about all this at one time. I’ll leave you with this thought:

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice the Order: Penance, Baptism, remission of sins, receiving the Holy Ghost.

Penance (repentance, fasting, almsgiving) is first, however, there is a separation between Penance and Baptism in this verse. Penance leads to Baptism. Notice: Baptism is FIRST in the order of salvation and NOT last! Most of the time I hear someone say they “believed” and “walked the aisle” or made an “altar call” (even though there is no altar) and THEN, in a lower voice to show less importance, they will whisper that they were Baptized. They will say Baptism is just an ordinance. Jesus ordered it so we have to do it. Jesus “Orders” Baptism, Jesus “Orders” the Great Commission, Jesus “Orders” keeping the Commandments. To dispensationalists these are all “symbolic”.

In Acts 2:38 the order is cause and effect.

In other words:

Baptism causes remission of sins (Nicene Creed)
Baptism causes the receiving of the Holy Ghost

You are wanting to say it means:

Be Baptized (for no really good reason)
Your sins will be remitted (doesn’t say how in this verse)
You will receive the Holy Ghost (doesn’t say how in this verse)

The first part of the sentence has no relation to the middle or last part. Makes no sense.

Okay, as I said, you asked for it, lol, so there it is.

I did want to work one last point about not having to die in order to go to Heaven: Paul knew, because it was just as true back then as it is now, that "...every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man." That is why he did not want to be unclothed.



And for those that aren't aware, this is a little humor based on ZZ Top (get it? Lagrange? ZZ Top ...).

My Comment: Lol Darrell, you’re a good guy. I see that in your posts. We may disagree strongly but we are trying to do the same thing which is to follow Jesus in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Talking about ZZ Top is speaking to my age. I’m an older guy but young in the Faith! Anyway, I understand the connection - LaGrange - the song. Funny! I like it. The first time I heard ZZ Top was when they came out with their album “Fandango” in 1975. Yea, I’m old. Lol

Just so you know, where the name “LaGrange” comes from is that it is the name of my favorite Thomistic Theologian named Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange. He taught at the Angelicum in Rome from 1909-1959.

To Sum Up this Thread

I think I have shown that you cannot be Raptured because you have to die first. Also, I brought up two doctrines that I thought would help stabilize any view of Eschatology and they were: (1) The Communion of Saints and (2) The Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Eucharist)

Now I would like to briefly introduce a possible alternative to the Rapture. The Rapture seems to be a way to avoid suffering and death during the Great Tribulation. How about this:

Acts 12:7-10 An angel protected Peter and freed him from prison
Gen 19:15-17 Lot and his wife and daughters led out of Sodom and Gemmorah by an angel
Mary (Gen 3:15, Apoc 12:13-17 - protects Her seed - she will crush the serpent - through the power of her Son)

Notice: God is not intervening directly but through mediators.

In Catholic private prophecy (not biblical), this scenario comes up fairly often. An example is the private prophecy of the Warning and the Three Days of Darkness, which probably comes right at the end of the Tribulation. It speaks of protection where you either will be under the protection of an angel or an angel will direct you to a refuge where you can’t be seen. This is at the end of the Tribulation but some prophecies have been interpreted to mean protection all the way through the Tribulation. Or you could be protected under the “Mantle of Mary”. I realize this needs to be explained. Anyway, it’s protection. There will still be suffering though. I read a book a couple of years ago by the exorcist, Fr Esper and he thinks this. Just a thought. We can talk about it later. Think about that.

Darrell, I know you are probably going to post another 20+ posts right after I finish. You are so fast! I’ve always been slow. I will evaluate them and go from there. May God bless you Darrell!

 

[LaGrange]

Scott Hahn's book: 'The Lambs Supper' makes it abundantly clear that the Mass is described as a pledge and an anticipation: it is “a pledge of the life to come”. The mass is truly 'heaven on earth'.

My devotion and commitment to Jesus to bring others to know him and for them to make them known since I found the Catholic Faith has increased ten fold since realizing and participating daily in what Jesus gave in this beloved meal.

We know in Acts 2 that Christians were 'breaking bread' daily in the Eucharist. I don't know any other churches that are doing that today other than the Catholic Church.

I really like Scott Hahn. You are so right. God bless you!!!

 

[37818]

The unBiblical "mass" as it is being called has nothing to do with the rapture question.

https://www.amazon.com/Rapture-Question-John-F-Walvoord/dp/0310341515

 

[timtofly]

So Genesis 2;17 means what? It was before the fall. What did whales and spiders eat?

Plant life. Plants will keep growing and shedding. Plants never died. But their leaves, seeds, and fruit can provide all the nourishment required in creation.

Death and decay is what requires meat and death to keep perpetuating.

Death did not exist until Adam literally died when he disobeyed God.

Adam went from a permanent incorruptible physical body to a temporal corruptible physical body. Adam physically died.

We live in a physically dead body. We call this death when the soul leaves the body, but technically that is life and no more death.

Unless of course the soul goes to sheol.

The tasting death part and soul sleep was the condition prior to the Cross. After the Cross, a soul no longer had to taste death, nor sleep (the valley of the shadow of death/Abraham's bosom). David called it sleep; Jesus called it Abraham's bosom.

Since the Cross, souls that are redeemed go immediately to Paradise and receive a permanent incorruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5:1. No one alive can prevent this phenomenon, nor enter Paradise before those already there.

 

[timtofly]

Paul may very well have been caught up in his physical form, because Paul was already redeemed on an eternal basis (whereas Enoch and Elijah were not).
So I would say as a general principle it will be when the Rapture takes place that we see men enter into Heaven without dying, but we might have an example in Paul of an eternally redeemed saint entering Heaven in his earthly body.

God can change and take any one to Paradise as He sees fit.

How is that not any different than God redeems according to God's Will?

The Bible says Enoch walked with God and was not found. Unless Paradise was still on earth, who is to say Enoch did not enter Paradise and never left? The last time Adam walked and talked with God was in Paradise.

So God redeemed Enoch giving him a permanent incorruptible physical body, and let him enter Paradise.

IMO, Paradise was taken to heaven at the Flood when heaven and earth changed. There was a new heaven and earth after the Flood. Paradise now in heaven, made it new. Earth was divided by the Flood and the continents started to separate and form mountain ranges. 2 Peter 3

I also think Enoch came back as Elijah, and may have done so more than once. Now we see Elijah go to Paradise in the heavens. Jesus on Sunday morning ascended into Paradise after talking to Mary. That is when Abraham's bosom ascended bodily into Paradise. Matthew 27:52-53

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

This would be considered the last day resurrection and rapture, ascending into heaven with Christ, the whole body of the OT redeemed. Abraham's bosom was emptied, no one would ever taste death again.

 

[timtofly]

You interpert it differently than I do. And for now, simply leave this at that. We both believe Romans 5:12. Genesis 2:17 is a proof that death already existed.

That is not what Genesis 1 and 2 say at all. Genesis 2 says not even plants died. Tell me how life would go on if they ate all the plants and there were no plants left?

Here is what it actually says:

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

God literally called how plants produced, meat. But plants never died. Genesis 2:4-6

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Most were taught this is just a creation recap, but that is missing the whole point entirely. God is literally saying until death not even seeds germinated in the ground. There were no wild plants that ever grew. There were no domesticated seeds sown in the ground. Literally everything a plant produced was eaten by all other life, both on land and in the sea. This Lord's Day was also not a 24 hour period. These generations of constant growth on earth, for all life, except new plants, which never died but was the source of all meat for 1,000 years. Here is another translation:

"Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. On the day when Adonai, God, made earth and heaven, (day with the Lord, 1,000 years) there was as yet no wild bush on the earth, and no wild plant had as yet sprung up; for Adonai, God, had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no one to cultivate the ground. Rather, a mist went up from the earth which watered the entire surface of the ground."

There was no cultivation done for 1,000 years. There was no germination of any wild seeds period. The same plants and trees God planted on the third day never died, until sin entered the world.

The Garden of Eden was planted after the 1,000 years were over. The only new plants and trees since day 3.

 

[LaGrange]

The unBiblical "mass" as it is being called has nothing to do with the rapture question.

https://www.amazon.com/Rapture-Question-John-F-Walvoord/dp/0310341515

For the viewers,

First, I want to explain again why this has come up on this thread about the Rapture. I am advocating for believing in the Doctrines of the Communion of Saints and the Mass (Marriage Supper of the Lamb) because these would allow for things to be taking place on earth and in heaven at the same time. I think this would bring a lot more harmony into any eschatological view. I know the Mass is a hard sell.

Ok 37818,

I spoke about the Mass (Marriage Supper) all through my discussion with Darrell. I would list the post numbers but it would be too many. I barely scratched the surface in proving the Mass but there is enough to get started. I suggest you go through all my posts with Darrell and see what I said.

Here’s what I will do:

You give me a post number and something I said about the Mass that you disagreed with and I’ll answer it. Is that ok?

 

[LaGrange]

God can change and take any one to Paradise as He sees fit.

How is that not any different than God redeems according to God's Will?

The Bible says Enoch walked with God and was not found. Unless Paradise was still on earth, who is to say Enoch did not enter Paradise and never left? The last time Adam walked and talked with God was in Paradise.

My Comment: I guess you were reading post #20. If Paul went to the Third Heaven (heaven as we think of heaven) bodily in 2 Cor 12:2, then he didn’t stay there because he later died. Scripture doesn’t say he died but the historian, Eusebius, said he did. Also, even more important, Paul says he did this Fourteen years earlier! He wrote this down fourteen years later so we know he didn’t stay. He came back and died. This shows you have to die to get to heaven.

So God redeemed Enoch giving him a permanent incorruptible physical body, and let him enter Paradise.

My Comment: Timetofly, I don’t think scripture says that anywhere, does it? A “permanent” incorruptible body? Paradise isn’t heaven as we think of heaven because Christ had not opened the gates of heaven (Mark 16:19) when Enoch was taken up (Gen 5:24).

IMO, Paradise was taken to heaven at the Flood when heaven and earth changed. There was a new heaven and earth after the Flood. Paradise now in heaven, made it new. Earth was divided by the Flood and the continents started to separate and form mountain ranges. 2 Peter 3

My Comment: Noah and his family, after the Flood, stayed on the same earth. I know you are looking at 2 Pet 3:3-7. The earth was new in the sense that it was cleansed. This signifies baptism because it means that by Baptism (water) you enter the Church (ark) (1 Pet 3:20-21). I’m not sure what you mean by “paradise was taken to heaven at the Flood”? I don’t think all the people that died (drowned) went to heaven because they signified sin.

I also think Enoch came back as Elijah, and may have done so more than once. Now we see Elijah go to Paradise in the heavens. Jesus on Sunday morning ascended into Paradise after talking to Mary. That is when Abraham's bosom ascended bodily into Paradise. Matthew 27:52-53

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

This would be considered the last day resurrection and rapture, ascending into heaven with Christ, the whole body of the OT redeemed. Abraham's bosom was emptied, no one would ever taste death again.

My Comment: I agree that the Bosom of Abraham went to heaven when Christ ascended into heaven. Quoting Matt 27:52-53 to prove the Rapture is possible doesn’t work because all those in the Bosom of Abraham had died. I said that in my discussion with Darrell. You have to die to go to heaven.

I don’t think Enoch came back as Elijah but, even if he did, neither one of them has died yet. This is why many believe they will be the Two Witnesses (Apoc 11:3-12). You have to die to go to heaven.

 

[37818]

Tell me how life would go on if they ate all the plants and there were no plants left?

That is an absurd notion. Wasn't even proposed. The simple truth, death was part of the good creation. Genesis 2:17.

 

[37818]

You give me a post number and something I said about the Mass that you disagreed with and I’ll answer it. Is that ok?

I do not agree. But I will at this point keep these things in mind.

 

[timtofly]

My Comment: I agree that the Bosom of Abraham went to heaven when Christ ascended into heaven. Quoting Matt 27:52-53 to prove the Rapture is possible doesn’t work because all those in the Bosom of Abraham had died. I said that in my discussion with Darrell. You have to die to go to heaven.

The OT redeemed ascended after a physical resurrection. A resurrection happens after a death.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (temporary) were dissolved, we have a building (permanent) of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

This body is corruptible. At death the soul puts on incorruption, thus an incorruptible body.

In Adam's flesh we are already dead. What we call death is just the soul leaving this temporal body. We could say that living at all on earth is death. We have to accomplish that before any judgment is received.

At the Second Coming, those walking around on earth who are redeemed, leave this body and the soul puts on a permanent incorruptible physical body. So does the soul ascend into this permanent body, or does the permanent body ascend like what happened to those in Abraham's bosom? We will only know when it happens.

 

[timtofly]

That is an absurd notion. Wasn't even proposed. The simple truth, death was part of the good creation. Genesis 2:17.

You are arguing from an imagined conclusion. The Scripture is plain. No new plants grew prior to sin. If they ate all the plants, they would have died, with nothing left to eat. Genesis 1 comes before your assumption that plants died. Genesis 2:5 points out there were no new plants. Your point would mean if plants died, they would have run out of food very quickly. Nothing died before Adam disobeyed God. Adam and Eve were the first of creation to literally die. Then Adam was told he had to start germination of plants and force them to die. The punishment given to Adam was what caused plant life to die. Plants and trees would no longer sustain creation as meat. Life would demand other sources of nourishment.

"Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

 

[37818]

You are arguing from an imagined conclusion.

Not imagined. God mentions death in Genesis 2:17.

 

[37818]

The Scripture is plain. No new plants grew prior to sin

False. Genesis 1:11-13.