Rapture - The Poll

[MB]

Show me in that verse where it says this is a pre-trib gathering of the saints...



Wow. That's some impressive violence you're doing to the scripture and to what I said...

Not "Any gentile can be a jew."
Well physically that's obvious. But through the whole of scripture God is looking for those who have FAITH! He says circumcise your hearts! That's what Romans 2:28 is saying! A Jew - a child of Abraham and inheritor of the promise- is not just one who has been physically circumcised but those that have the faith of Abraham.

"This verse is letting us know that there were Gentiles living in Israel"
You're joking right? In the context of describing the difference between those who were physically children of Abraham yet not receiving the promise, you think Paul just want's to drop a line about Gentiles living in the land? Seriously?

"This says nothing that you claim;"
Actually that says everything about this issue. Those that are the "new creation" (regeneration by the Spirit) are the Israel of God.

"Peter was speaking to Jews because He was an apostle to the Jews.The word's "holy nation" prove you are wrong Gentile are not a nation but of many nations since they are the rest of the world."
So did Peter take a different Gospel to the Jews? Were the Jewish believers any less (more?) Christian than Gentile believers? This was written to CHRISTIANS who happen to be of Jewish lineage.

And calling all believers a "holy nation" is entirely consistent with the rest of the New Testament. Jesus said in Matt 21 says to the Pharisees "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
Jesus couldn't have been talking about an earthly Kingdom because the theocracy was long dead and the Jews were under the boot of the Romans.

Believers are "ambassadors of Christ" ambassadors are residents of a far-off country. in the same way we believers are the residents of the Holy nation - the people of God's Kingdom.


I have no idea what you're talking about.



You be able to read it but you seem to have difficulty in understanding it.



I already answered this in the Post-tribulation thread.



:laugh: You think I'm a Calvinist? Sorry not so.

So you think I'm a liar and that my faith is unstable? How Christian of you. I have NEVER said any such thing! The only time I have EVER changed beliefs is when something has been proven to me and God has convicted me of the truth. I came to these beliefs SOLELY through BIBLE STUDY. Bible alone. Sola Scriptura. For you to say that I listen to men more than God is laughable since NOONE reading scripture thoroughly would ever come to a dispensational point of view.

And the "Kicking and screaming" bit was a joke. I was simply saying that to illustrate how the scripture was all pointing to one way and i didn't want to go that way because i was comfortable with dispensationalism. It's what I grew up in and had been taught all my life! I didn't want to let go of it. It was comfortable. But I had to let the scripture speak for itself and allow God to lead me. Thus "God drug me kicking and screaming"



You haven't paid attention to anything I've said... there is no "the tribulation." Tribulation is the experience of persecution and suffering. Not a period of time with that name! And Jesus said we would suffer tribulation, Paul said it, Peter said it, and the uniform testimony of the church is tribulation and persecution. We wouldn't have Foxe's book of Martyrs if that wasn't so.

You see what I mean you still do not know what you are talking about.
MB

 

[RLBosley]

I'm curious of why you went back to this posting from the 12 since you already replied to it once? Doesn't matter.

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

No where in Thessalonians does the Lords feet ever touch the ground.

Your original position was that the the rapture was not the "coming of Christ" because His feet never touch the ground. So while this passage doesn't mention Jesus actually setting foot on earth it is implied in verse 15 when it says His "coming". Parousia is the word used here and that word is never used in scripture for anything except a physical return (as someone from a trip) and specifically the second coming of Christ to judge and reign.
From Thayer's Lexicon:
Parousia - the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God

I believe those verses, just not your version of interpretation of them. There are more than one resurrection. There are two gatherings of the sealed. In the rapture and at the second coming. They are clearly two separate events. Post tribers lump them both together.

Not because you disagree with me but because you disagree with the plain teaching of the Bible. The truth is in scripture all you need to do is believe it. Then stop twisting scripture to match what you want it to say.

I agree that there is more than one resurrection - the righteous dead before the millennium at the rapture and the unrighteous dead at the end of the millennium. There are not two gathers of believers though. That is nowhere in scripture.

All I can say to that is you must have discovered I'm right and now your jealous.

I honestly don't know how you came to think that. I have made no such "discovery". the only thing I've discovered is your immense pride and unwillingness to consider a different position than what you've been spoon-fed.

I said what scripture says clearly and you deny that He will return with all His saints. Angles are not saints and you certainly are no Biblical Greek expert that you can translate any thing. You use far to many versions for my taste to arrive at your conclusions. This proves you like to pick and choose which is a very poor way of trying to understand scripture.
The word saint can never be translated correctly unless you at least follow a dictionary. There is only one meaning to the word "Saint" It does not in any circumstances mean angles. You are way off track there my friend.

I never denied that Christ would return with His saints. In the post-tribulation thread I specifically laid out how a return for and with the saints can be one post-tribulation event. You just chose to ignore it.

What I bolded above is particularly amusing since in actuality I only read from the KJV (for convenience). I will often go to other translations online to see what other men of God have rendered the scripture but that isn't in any way a bad thing and actually consistent with the intention of the KJV translators.

Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

And frankly who cares if that isn't to your taste? What's that got to do with anything?
And what that proves is that I actually intend to get the full understanding of what the scripture says, not picking and choosing.

Yet you seem to think you know more about Biblical Greek than the Bible translators do.

Never said or thought that. I go to Bible translators, dictionaries, and commentary precisely because I don't know as much as those men. Stop building strawmen to attack. focus on the issue at hand. Unless you'd rather admit you can't defend your position and that's why you'd rather slander me.

I don't believe it was God dragging you. That doesn't mean you weren't dragged, it just was not God.

What part of "joke" didn't you follow?

Can you show scripture that plainly states that the rapture doesn't happen until the second coming?
MB

I've already showed you several. Why should you change if I show you again? But because you asked nicely:
Matthew 24:29-31
Mark 13:24-27
Luke 21:25-28
1 Corinthians 15:23
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

Do you have any scripture that plainly states the rapture is before the tribulation? Anything that has no possible alternative interpretation?

You see what I mean you still do not know what you are talking about.
MB

:BangHead:

 

[MB]

I'm curious of why you went back to this posting from the 12 since you already replied to it once? Doesn't matter.


Your original position was that the the rapture was not the "coming of Christ" because His feet never touch the ground. So while this passage doesn't mention Jesus actually setting foot on earth it is implied in verse 15 when it says His "coming". Parousia is the word used here and that word is never used in scripture for anything except a physical return (as someone from a trip) and specifically the second coming of Christ to judge and reign.
From Thayer's Lexicon:
Parousia - the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God

I use thayers as well although I do not take it as absolute as I do scripture. Verse 15 does not imply that this is the coming quite the contrary;

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.


The dead rise first. This is what this verse is about. It has nothing to do with any implication of His feet touching the mountain top. This is the first resurrection and gathering of His Saints. After the Judgement of the churches the churches are no longer mentioned. The reason for that is because they are in Heaven being wedded to Christ. The tribulation is not only about the wrath of God but the rule of Satan and his persecution of the people who do not worship him.

I agree that there is more than one resurrection - the righteous dead before the millennium at the rapture and the unrighteous dead at the end of the millennium. There are not two gathers of believers though. That is nowhere in scripture.



I honestly don't know how you came to think that. I have made no such "discovery". the only thing I've discovered is your immense pride and unwillingness to consider a different position than what you've been spoon-fed.

I'm sorry your disappointed that I will not waver to your position. That's the way it is. You haven't shown me anything that I have seen or heard many times. I will never accept a post trib position simply because there is nothing in scripture that will change my position. Many post tribers like you have tried and still haven't shown anything clear about it. The whole doctrine is actually based on one verse.
1st Cor 15:52

I never denied that Christ would return with His saints. In the post-tribulation thread I specifically laid out how a return for and with the saints can be one post-tribulation event. You just chose to ignore it.

I read it I just am not convinced of it

What I bolded above is particularly amusing since in actuality I only read from the KJV (for convenience). I will often go to other translations online to see what other men of God have rendered the scripture but that isn't in any way a bad thing and actually consistent with the intention of the KJV translators.

The KJV translaters are long dead and just for your information there were no Alexandrian text available at the time.

And frankly who cares if that isn't to your taste? What's that got to do with anything?
And what that proves is that I actually intend to get the full understanding of what the scripture says, not picking and choosing.

You will never do that using multiple versions. They are all different and only one is an actual translation. The rest are the thoughts of men about what the Greek actually says. Known as dynamic translations or thought for thought. The KJV is a formal translation, Meaning a more word for word translation.

Never said or thought that. I go to Bible translators, dictionaries, and commentary precisely because I don't know as much as those men. Stop building strawmen to attack. focus on the issue at hand. Unless you'd rather admit you can't defend your position and that's why you'd rather slander me.

:laugh: Your being funny again. Your problem is you don't like my position anymore than I like yours. I don't pay much attention to the sayings of men apart from scripture. I literally rely on scripture for my faith, men have a tendency to be wrong. Take for instance of your trying to get me to believe that Saints are really Angles. Honest translation just isn't done the way you do it. There is actually a reason for Saints being there because it is what was meant. The word Angles was not meant. No matter how much you want to change it.

What part of "joke" didn't you follow?

I would have laughed but Calvinist use the same statement to describe how they got saved.

I've already showed you several. Why should you change if I show you again? But because you asked nicely:
Matthew 24:29-31

This describes the second resurrection and gathering of the elect. These are Jews and is why they are called the elect. Gentiles are chosen.

Mark 13:24-27

The same as Mat 24

Luke 21:25-28

the same thing

1 Corinthians 15:23

No post trib here

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

no post trib.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

The revealing of the anti Christ which this passage describes is the beginning of the tribulation.
Do you have any scripture that plainly states the rapture is before the tribulation? Anything that has no possible alternative interpretation?



:BangHead:[/QUOTE]
Eph_4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
This pictures Christians today being sealed.

Rev_7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Notice it's the children of Israel. I'm a Gentile and a child of God but not of Israel. The only ones saved out of the tribulation are the 144000.

There absolutely no proof this is the church because if it were they would not be called children of Israel.

The fact that the church is not mentioned any longer in Revelations after the warnings to the 7 churches.

The fact that Christ comes in the clouds at the beginning of the book Of Revelations.

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

With out these two things happening the rapture can't happen and they happen before the trib begins.

MB

 

[RLBosley]

I use thayers as well although I do not take it as absolute as I do scripture. Verse 15 does not imply that this is the coming quite the contrary;

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Uh how does it not refer to the coming of Christ? It specifically says "The coming of the Lord"!

The dead rise first. This is what this verse is about. It has nothing to do with any implication of His feet touching the mountain top. This is the first resurrection and gathering of His Saints. After the Judgement of the churches the churches are no longer mentioned. The reason for that is because they are in Heaven being wedded to Christ. The tribulation is not only about the wrath of God but the rule of Satan and his persecution of the people who do not worship him.

Why are you so caught up (see what i did there? :smilewinkgrin on Christ's feet touching the ground? Just because a passage doesn't say His feet touch the ground that has no bearing on whether or not it is the Second Coming. Revelation 19 doesn't make any mention of Jesus' feet touching the ground. You have not given any evidence at all that there is even a distinct period of time called the tribulation, let alone that the church won't be there. The word church not being used in parts of Revelation proves nothing. The word "Israel" is only used once during the part of Revelation that you believe is this "Tribulation period." Does that prove that Israel is only a bit player? According to your method of interpretation it should. How about since the book of Esther never mentions God? Is God not there? That argument is frankly stupid.

I'm sorry your disappointed that I will not waver to your position. That's the way it is. You haven't shown me anything that I have seen or heard many times. I will never accept a post trib position simply because there is nothing in scripture that will change my position. Many post tribers like you have tried and still haven't shown anything clear about it. The whole doctrine is actually based on one verse.
1st Cor 15:52

If you really think the whole doctrine of the post-tribulation rapture is based off that verse then you really haven't paid attention.

I read it I just am not convinced of it

Because it doesn't fit your theological system that you are imposing on the scripture.

The KJV translaters are long dead and just for your information there were no Alexandrian text available at the time.

I know... so?

You will never do that using multiple versions. They are all different and only one is an actual translation. The rest are the thoughts of men about what the Greek actually says. Known as dynamic translations or thought for thought. The KJV is a formal translation, Meaning a more word for word translation.

Are you KJVO? Your claim that only the KJV is a formal translation is easily disproved, but why bother, you'll ignore it just like everything else I've said.

That being said, I read only the KJV and love that old Bible. It's a great translation and in my opinion the most accurate. But it isn't perfect. Only the originals were.

:laugh: Your being funny again. Your problem is you don't like my position anymore than I like yours. I don't pay much attention to the sayings of men apart from scripture. I literally rely on scripture for my faith, men have a tendency to be wrong. Take for instance of your trying to get me to believe that Saints are really Angles. Honest translation just isn't done the way you do it. There is actually a reason for Saints being there because it is what was meant. The word Angles was not meant. No matter how much you want to change it.

I do not understand why you are so hung up on this one issue. Again if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it really means believers, so what? It's still consistent with historic premillennialism. I think this is the only verse that you have any hope of argument and that's why you keep trying to press it, and I agree with that. I'm not trying to say that it is for certain angels. I said it could be.

I would have laughed but Calvinist use the same statement to describe how they got saved.

No they don't. Non-Cals use that to pejoratively talk about Calvinist doctrine. Stop building straw-men. it doesn't help your shrinking credibility.

This describes the second resurrection and gathering of the elect. These are Jews and is why they are called the elect. Gentiles are chosen.

Do you understand what the word elect means? It means chosen! The church is called the elect of God. Col 3:12. What that means regarding soteriology is another conversation so lets not get into that.

And how many resurrections do you think there are? There is the first resurrection at the rapture and the second after the tribulation. That's even standard in dispensationalism.

The fact is that here and in the the parallel accounts of the Olivet Discourse Jesus is talking to Jews yes, but those Jews are followers of Christ, they are the proto-church if you will. These are believers and this discourse is given to believers as a guide for understanding what would happen starting in 70AD going to the Second Advent.

The same as Mat 24

the same thing

Yep.

No post trib here

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. ~ 1 Corinthians 15:23
The resurrection of those that are Christ's (Believers in other words) are at His parousia - His visible presence, coming. What's the next verse say? Then cometh the end! Not a pre-trib rapture, but a gathering of Christ's people right before the end.

no post trib.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.~ 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

Paul says "to you who are troubled" or you who are being persecuted (suffering tribulation) rest with us, because the Lord will be revealed from Heaven and take vengeance on those that do not obey the gospel (those who are doing the persecuting) And When is this? When He shall come to be glorified in his saints! Meaning that He has not been with those saints until this time! Clearly this isn't a return to judge with the church! This is Christ coming to judge and rescue the church!

 

[RLBosley]

Sorry ran out of room on the last post...

Eph_4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
This pictures Christians today being sealed.

I agree, but when is the day of redemption?
Luke 21:27-28
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
The day of redemption is when Jesus returns in power and great glory after the tribulation.

Rev_7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Notice it's the children of Israel. I'm a Gentile and a child of God but not of Israel. The only ones saved out of the tribulation are the 144000.

There absolutely no proof this is the church because if it were they would not be called children of Israel.

Really? So noone but Jews are saved during this so called tribulation period? Then explain this:
Revelation 7:6 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands

You said yourself that you think this great multitude is the 144,000. So how can they only be Jews if they are from all nations, kindreds (families/tribes), people, and tongues? And again, why is the list of tribes wrong? Here i will quote George Ladd:

Who are these 144,000? The first answer which suggests itself is that they are literally Jews and picture the salvation of the Jewish people. However, it is impossible for these to be literally Jews, for the twelve tribes listed are simply not the twelve tribes of Israel. Dan is altogether omitted; and Dan is the first tribe mentioned in the division of the land in Ezekiel 48:1. Furthermore, the tribe of Ephraim is also omitted, but it is included indirectly because Joseph was the father of both Ephraim and Manasseh. This means that in reality the tribe of Manasseh is included twice.

What does John mean when he lists twelve tribes of Israel which are Israel but are not literal Israel? He gives us a hint in 2:9 where he speaks of "those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." See also 3:9: "Behold those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not." Here is a clear fact: they were people who called themselves Jews, and were in literal fact really Jews, and yet in the spiritual sense they were not really Jews but constituted a synagogue of Satan. In these verses John clearly distinguishes between literal Jews and spiritual Jews. We may believe that John deliberately listed the 144,000 in an irregular listing of tribes to say that here are those who are true spiritual Jews without being literal Jews: in other words, the church.

The fact that the church is not mentioned any longer in Revelations after the warnings to the 7 churches.

The word "church" isn't used. So what? proves nothing. Israel is only used once (but in reality that is referring to the church anyway), yet you think this period of time revolves around them...

The fact that Christ comes in the clouds at the beginning of the book Of Revelations.

Never says that is the rapture. Not once. It is just a quick explanation of what the rest of the book/visions are about. The Coming of the Lord in power and glory!

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

With out these two things happening the rapture can't happen and they happen before the trib begins.

MB

Paul plainly says that the gathering together occurs at the coming of our Lord (2 Thess 2:1). So when does Christ come according to 2 Thess 2? After the man of sin is revealed and destroyed by the brightness of His coming! 2 Thess 2:8. The wicked one is destroyed at the coming of the Lord and that is when the gathering occurs. Again, clearly post-trib

 

[MB]

Bosley;
Let's just agree that we disagree and let it go. I've grown tired of discussing what I'm never going to convince you of. Certainly you will never convince me of your view either.
MB

 

[RLBosley]

Bosley;
Let's just agree that we disagree and let it go. I've grown tired of discussing what I'm never going to convince you of. Certainly you will never convince me of your view either.
MB

I suppose we can agree to drop the discussion.