No scripture supports the Rapture

[bbyrd009]

ya, what he said, you can just ignore the rest of this post if you want, i already know i don't talk too good :)

Why is it, when folks start to weaken in their argument, that they will ridicule others and become melodramatic in expressing themselves, thinking they can intimidate someone into their way of thinking.

well, i imagine that most believers would not put it the same way i did; by all means put that in whatever way seems right to you. i do not claim to know anyway, and i did not mean to ridicule. So if you would, fix my ridiculous assertion, and we will contrast them.

I think your problems are much deeper than some doctrinal position.

no doubt, but at least i am not interpreting Paul to mean that he craved or even looked forward to physical death in order to be with the Lord.

See, no matter how respectfully i try to say this, the Death Cult position is going to end up sounding ridiculous. Thank God our "churches" are finally falling into a pile of their own ashes, i say.

All theological discussions should be conducted without malice. Sure, firmly state one's position as best they can, point out where someone may be in error, but out of respect.

well, i took no offense at your assertion that

"Amillennial, or denial of the literal millennium, is so far out in left field that it is almost tantamount to heresy, and quite probably is. It impugns the very character of God... that He doesn't mean what He says or says what He means. It is essentially saying that God was incompetent in what he laid out in hundreds of passages of the OT. One has to spiritualize or allegorize the scripture to extremes. When we get doing that, then no one can really ascertain the true meaning of scripture and it leads to all sorts of doctrinal problems."

although i'm sure other amillenialists will; the point being that you did not mean to offend anyone, but someone will be offended anyway; i mean, after all you just called a good-sized chunk of Christendom heretics lol. Jesus.

One does not in fact have to "spiritualize" the Scriptures to any extremes; you are already aware of most or all of the symbology, which either fits reality or does not--any interpretation that does not ring true, you are certainly going to reject, right?

You understand that Christ stated that He must be raised up like a Snake on a Pole, yet you won't ever hear a sermon about Nehushtan in a death-cult church, etc. This is all a rerun for you, is it not?

So i am not buying it wadr, not saying that that should matter to you, because it should not imo. If you believe that Jesus is going to come riding in on a white horse, here any minute, and whisk you off to Paradise or however you care to put it, i am just going to be offensive to you i guess, so i apologize for that.

The "true" meaning of Scripture is ultimately for you to decide; not me, and not anyone else. At least imo.

I do tend to get melodramatic i guess, sorry about that, but i believed the Party in the Sky thing--after physical death, of course--for a long time myself, and i was just putting it the way i perceived it then. And let's be honest, it is an apt description.

 

[Copperhead]

Copperhead,

I appreciate your approach to debate on these issues. However, I have to disagree with your hermeneutics.

1. What do you mean when you talk about someone "spiritualizing" the meaning of Scripture? Don't we see this continually throughout the NT? Doesn't Paul refer to Jesus as the rock in the desert? Doesn't Jesus refer to himself as "manna" from heaven that we are to "eat?" Doesn't Matthew refer to Jesus as the Son that God called out of Egypt? I mean, clearly if we look at that passage in its original context it is clearly talking about literal Israel. Moreover, specifically in Revelation, don't we see the churches symbolized as lamp stands, the stars as angels and a sword protruding out of Jesus' mouth? Surely we shouldn't interpret these things as "literal." So I guess the question is how do you determine when "spiritualizing" is inappropriate. I would say that Revelation is loaded with symbolic and spiritual meanings. In fact, John indicates that the visions given to him were shown in symbols (at least that is what the Greek indicates in Rev. 1:1). I agree that we shouldn't just grab random meanings, but certainly the NT authors do not always seek the most "literal" interpretation of the OT, nor does Revelation' genre lend itself to the most "literal" interpretation. Otherwise, we should assume Jesus has 7 literal eyes and 7 literal horns and looks like both a lion and a slain lamb in physical appearance.

2. I guess I would question what you mean by "enduring" as a means of "earning" salvation. It seems to me that Jesus, himself, in Revelation implies that one must endure if they are to be saved. See Rev. 2:5, 10, 16, 26; 3:3, 11, etc. Personally, I feel it is a theological assumption on your part that "enduring" is a "work." I don't believe faithfulness in the Scriptures is ever viewed as a "work." Rather, faith is contrasted with works. Those who remain faithful are basing their salvation on their confidence in Jesus, not themselves. Revelation teaches clearly (in my view) that enduring faithfulness is essential because faith, biblically, is never merely a momentary cognitive assent to facts.

3. I am not sure exactly what you believe about Revelation, but in my mind, the "Great Tribulation" is not a future event, nor is the "millennial kingdom." As for the rapture (which is the point of this forum), I see no evidence for it (at least not how it is defined as Dispensationalists) anywhere in Scripture. I'd be interested to hear your hermeneutical approach to justifying such a doctrine, if indeed you hold to it.

I appreciate your contribution on here and look forward to the dialogue.

Spiritualizing is trying to reach deeper hidden meanings in a scripture passage that is not necessarily there, and many times is nothing more than putting a spin on a passage to make it match what the interpreter is wanting the passage to mean. There are indeed spiritual applications that can be derived from some scripture passages, but when the passage does not call for that, in other words, when the plain sense of the passage makes sense, then there is no justification for it to make any another sense.

While Revelation does have what some would call symbolic and spiritual content, it is also the Grand Central Station of prophecy. Virtually everything in the Revelation has been mentioned elsewhere in scripture. It is taking those previous references along with what is being said in Revelation that one then can ascertain a better understanding of the passage. Since it is indeed the "Grand Central Station" of Bible prophecy and everything can be referenced elsewhere in scripture, then if it is not future, then that means all the references to the future outlined in the OT is not future either. But I still don't seen the temple built that Ezekiel spent several chapters on, for one. And when you combine with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and most of the other prophets, they must have been just kidding us. I still haven't seen national Israel recognize their sin of rejection of the Messiah and call out for His return, as outlined in Hosea. Many of these things are what Revelation is showing.

Enduring in your context, yes, you could make the assertion that a person's efforts are needing to ensure salvation. But that somewhat denies how salvation is purchased to begin with, and avoids that even faith is a gift from God. There are myriads of passages that clearly outline that the Messiah is the only means of salvation. Only thru His atoning death, burial, and resurrection can payment be made for removal of the penalty of sin and death and justify the person to God. Justification is a not a process. It is a one time event. We are justified before God by the sacrifice of the Messiah. Sanctification (being set apart) is an ongoing process. Two different things. The only judgement that the redeemed fall under is where are works are judged for what we do with our lives after justification. For those not redeemed, the only judgement is that of condemnation, since they have not been made justified.

Progressive revelation is a sound concept. Did Adam have the same revelation of God as Abraham did? Did Abraham have the same revelation of things that the prophets did? Did the prophets have the same revelation as the apostles? And to take that further, can it be said that even the apostles had the same revelation as those that will live in the millennial kingdom with Messiah ruling from Jerusalem? That is the primary meaning of dispensationalism. It has taken on a different context by those that have issues with it, but that is not the problem of the original meaning. Revelation is just a putting together many of the passages of previous scripture in a context that the prophets may not have insight to, as it is, after all, the Revelation given by Jesus Himself.

Revelation is a cross of what has been, what is, and what is to come... the Grand Central Station of Bible prophecy. Clearly there are passages that already were fulfilled. Like Revelation 12 is describing the woman, the child, and the dragon. The woman is clearly Israel (Gen 37:9-11) and the child is clearly Israel giving birth to the Messiah. He is destined to rule the nations, but is caught up God's thrown, which Jesus does sit at the right hand of God now (Psalm 110:1). There are passages that are future, i.e. the new heavens and the new earth. As for the Millennial kingdom being real or not, then Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and virtually every prophet of the OT were scribbling stuff that had no meaning.

Ezekiel for instance outline a future temple, right down to physical dimensions and even areas reserved for food preparers. Hardly allegorical or figurative. And he also outlines how the nations will be required to go up to Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles each year, and those that do not will have rain withheld from their land. That sounds like a millennial kingdom to me. And with subjects that are still physically human. Isaiah has dozens of passages that outline events that will happen that could only be futuristic. The Holocaust took 1 out of every 3 Jews. Jeremiah outlines that during this terrible time of Jacob's trouble (Great Tribulation) it will take 2 out of every 3 Jews. Zechariah 13:7-9 outlines how the Jews will be scattered after the Messiah is killed, and in the land, 2 out of 3 will be killed and the third that are left will call out to Him and He will hear them just as Hosea states clearly that Messiah would return to His place due to Israel's rejection and that He would only return when they acknowledge their offense and call out for Him to return. Hosea 5:15-6:2. Still haven't seen that happen yet. And when He returns, he will cause the nations to restore Jerusalem and bring all the Jewish people left throughout the world to Israel. Isaiah 42:22-23. Still haven't seen that happen yet. And Revelation cross references to many of the same portions of scripture.

Clearly, there has to be a future millennial kingdom.

 

[Copperhead]

ya, what he said, you can just ignore the rest of this post if you want, i already know i don't talk too good :)
well, i imagine that most believers would not put it the same way i did; by all means put that in whatever way seems right to you. i do not claim to know anyway, and i did not mean to ridicule. So if you would, fix my ridiculous assertion, and we will contrast them.
no doubt, but at least i am not interpreting Paul to mean that he craved or even looked forward to physical death in order to be with the Lord.

See, no matter how respectfully i try to say this, the Death Cult position is going to end up sounding ridiculous. Thank God our "churches" are finally falling into a pile of their own ashes, i say.
well, i took no offense at your assertion that

"Amillennial, or denial of the literal millennium, is so far out in left field that it is almost tantamount to heresy, and quite probably is. It impugns the very character of God... that He doesn't mean what He says or says what He means. It is essentially saying that God was incompetent in what he laid out in hundreds of passages of the OT. One has to spiritualize or allegorize the scripture to extremes. When we get doing that, then no one can really ascertain the true meaning of scripture and it leads to all sorts of doctrinal problems."

although i'm sure other amillenialists will; the point being that you did not mean to offend anyone, but someone will be offended anyway; i mean, after all you just called a good-sized chunk of Christendom heretics lol. Jesus.

One does not in fact have to "spiritualize" the Scriptures to any extremes; you are already aware of most or all of the symbology, which either fits reality or does not--any interpretation that does not ring true, you are certainly going to reject, right?

You understand that Christ stated that He must be raised up like a Snake on a Pole, yet you won't ever hear a sermon about Nehushtan in a death-cult church, etc. This is all a rerun for you, is it not?

So i am not buying it wadr, not saying that that should matter to you, because it should not imo. If you believe that Jesus is going to come riding in on a white horse, here any minute, and whisk you off to Paradise or however you care to put it, i am just going to be offensive to you i guess, so i apologize for that.

The "true" meaning of Scripture is ultimately for you to decide; not me, and not anyone else. At least imo.

I do tend to get melodramatic i guess, sorry about that, but i believed the Party in the Sky thing--after physical death, of course--for a long time myself, and i was just putting it the way i perceived it then. And let's be honest, it is an apt description.

I have no doubt that I am contradicting what most in Christendom believe. But the church was already in deep theological error before the ink was dry on the NT. Just a read of Paul's letters to some of them and the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation make that clear. Majority thought does not make it true. Myriads of passages in the OT regarding majority thought in Israel didn't help them a bit. They were wrong. Even Elijah was worried until the Lord told him that He had reserved 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal. Not insinuating anything, just an frame of reference. I am not offended about wrong theology by others in the least. That is outside my pay grade. Nor do I worry that others might be offended at my positions. We all have varying positions on different issues. Some just take issues like this and make it almost a test of one's justification. Like I stated one other time... I also consider myself a Pan-Tribulationist. That is someone who thinks it will all pan out as God intended. What you or I think about it has little relevance to what actually will happen.

 

[keras]

Kept from the hour of Trial…

How do Revelation 3:10 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9 say we are to be ‘kept from the hour of trial’ and ‘not destined for retribution’?
They are in the context of: Hold on to what you have, [your faith] let no one rob you of your crown. [your reward] Keep sober, armed with faith and love…..continue to encourage one another.

When we examine the Greek word ‘peirasmos’, translated as ‘trial’ in Rev. 3, we see it doesn’t match with ‘thlipsis’, used in Matthew 24:21; which refers to the Great Tribulation. 1 Thess. 5 is in the context of a sudden destruction the Lord is going to send upon the ungodly peoples. We should not be in the dark about it, knowing what it will be and be prepared for it, spiritually and physically.


For those who stand firm in faith and love, there are two possibilities. One is a rapture removal to heaven, the other is the Lord’s protection during that time of trouble.

I discount the rapture because such a thing as a general removal of the Lord’s people has never happened before, the Israelites and now Christians have always had to face attacks, persecution and disasters. God doesn’t change, Malachi 3:6, and what happened in the past was symbolic and examples for us, upon whom the end of the age is coming: 1 Corinthians 10:6 Besides the fact that a mass rapture to heaven in the end times, is nowhere prophesied or found in the Bible.

Protection does have a precedent; the three men in the furnace, Daniel 3:19-27 But scriptures like Psalms 23 and Isaiah 43:2 ….walk thru fire and you will not be scorched…. plus over 30 other prophesies assuring safety and protection through what is to come. Jesus prayed for this in John 17:15 and promises like; Zephaniah 2:3, 2 Peter 2:9, Psalms 91:1-16, Jeremiah 17:7-8, Isaiah 26:20 are a great comfort and support when trouble strikes.

It’s simple, really; we are plainly told what to do on the terrible Day of the Lord: Call upon the Name of the Lord and you will be saved. Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21

 

[Copperhead]

It is indeed simple! Those that are not removed prior to the Great Tribulation are to indeed call upon the Name of the Lord and will be saved! The passage you use and the application is correct!

One aspect that I don't think that is being reasoned, is, what is the purpose of the Great Tribulation? Satan is making a major attempt to corrupt everything to the extreme and the Lord is pouring His wrath out on the inhabitant of the earth. This is not the same as major tribulations that Christians have faced throughout the ages. Even today, North Korean Christians are being beaten, tortured, and killed. But it clearly is not the wrath of God that is upon them. It is the wrath of Satan. And therein lies the difference. All tribulations up to this final event, are Satan inspired. The Great Tribulation is God inspired and directed which is designed to punish the inhabitants of the earth and drive national Israel to the wall and cry out for their Messiah, as is required for the Lord to return. Hosea 5:15-6:2 Why do you think there has been so much hatred of Jewish people and many attempts to exterminate them over the centuries? Because Satan, who knows scripture as well or better than any of us, knows that for the Lord to return, national Israel has to recognize who truly is the Messiah they rejected, and cry out for His return, before He will indeed return. God has not allowed Satan to prevail in eliminating the Jewish people. Jesus Himself supported the prophecy in Hosea:

Matthew 23:38-39 (NKJV) See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'

Since that is the purpose of the Great Tribulation, why would one suppose that those who have been declared righteous would be expected to endure the same wrath? That seems more of a works righteousness idea. The we have to do something to earn our way to eternal life and prove our faithfulness. What purpose would there be in pouring out of God's wrath on those that are His children by adoption thru faith in the Messiah as if they have the same status as the God rejecting world around them?

I side with the pre-trip still. Nothing is scripture leads me to believe that we must endure God's wrath on any level once we have been declared righteous by the finished work of Messiah. We may face chastisement and correction for when we continue to do wrong and we are expected to endure the wrath of Satan that is directed at us, for sure. But this wrath being poured out is directed to those that reject Messiah. The problem in this discussion seems to be confusing the wrath of Satan and the wrath of God.

 

[keras]

It is indeed simple! Those that are not removed prior to the Great Tribulation are to indeed call upon the Name of the Lord and will be saved! The passage you use and the application is correct!

My point is that 'saved' does NOT mean removal!

1. As Pre-Trib writer and leader John Walvoord admits, there is no actual verse of Scripture that by itself clearly teaches the Pre-Tribulation rapture.
2. Pre-Trib’ers force assumptions on many key Bible verses – especially assuming that all references to “saints” and to the “elect”, who are being persecuted and martyred during the “end-times’ tribulation”, must refer to those individuals who are saved after the Pre-Trib rapture has taken place. How are all these folks getting saved during the “end-times’ tribulation” if the “Church” and the “restrainer” have been removed?

3. There is no instance in the New Testament where the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Apostles made any statement to the effect that “the church is to be evacuated off of planet Earth seven years prior to the beginning of the end-times’ tribulation period”.

4. Despite taking several texts out of context from a few early church fathers’ writings, the Pre-Trib’ers really cannot find any predominant, popular teaching that supports the Pre-Trib rapture prophetic viewpoint in any era of Church history prior to the 1830s.

5. Many learned men of the Christian faith, such as John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, John Knox, John Calvin, Martin Luther, George Whitefield, etc., were all solid Post-Trib believers!

6. The Pre-Trib rapture is a very big “cash cow” for Pre-Trib writers. Yet, there are some Pre-Trib’ers who will admit that their prophetic viewpoint is still a minority among Bible scholars. How can that be, you may ask, since so many prophecy books favor the “Pre-Trib” viewpoint? That is because so many of the major “Christian” publishing houses are, for the most part, owned and controlled by liberal Christians. Post-Trib writers often find it extremely hard to get their books published by these publishing houses, because Pre-Trib “sells”. Could that be because a rapture removal to heaven appeals to an “escapist” mentality? It’s that mentality of: “I sure don’t want to be here when the Antichrist takes over!” The Pre-Trib rapture theory appeals to many, after all, who wants to face persecution?

7. Despite the fact that many Pre-Trib’ers dislike author Dave MacPherson, they haven’t been able to disprove his well-documented findings that show that the Pre-Trib rapture’s origins (as far as any public teaching) date back to the 1830s – and not earlier than that time. Nor have the Pre-Trib’ers been able to disprove MacPherson’s findings that the vast majority of the early church fathers taught that the church would go through the “end-times’ tribulation” – and lots of tribulation before that.

8. Public teaching of the Pre-Trib rapture originated in the British Isles during the 1830s. This theory was then taken to America a little bit later, and was popularized by the “Scofield Study Bible”.

9. To believe in the Pre-Trib rapture, one must ignore several key Bible verses that speak directly against that idea, such as John 17:15 where the Lord Jesus Christ Himself prays that the Father NOT take believers OUT OF the world – and I Thessalonians 4:16, 17, which says that the Christians living at the time of Jesus Christ’s return are not caught up until after the “dead in Christ” are raised first.

10. Believing in the Pre-Trib rapture, goes against the prevalent theme of those portions of the Bible that deal with tribulation and persecution. That prevalent theme is “preservation in the midst of tribulation”. Note: the accounts of Daniel in the lions’ den, and of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace! Isaiah 43:2

11. To believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture, you have to think that you will be among a very “select group” of Christians who will not have to suffer horrible things during the “end-times’ tribulation”. Your “select group” excludes those millions of Christians from past centuries who were NOT “air evacuated” out of their tribulation and suffering, and the many individuals who become Christians during the “end-times’ tribulation”, and who will suffer martyrdom!

12. The Pre-Trib rapture belief, for the most part, seems to produce very bad fruit– that is, it seems to have neutralized” many Christians living today, causing them to sit back and to not fight evil. And that is because, don’t you know, they won’t be here when things get really bad. Could this “doctrine” have been specifically designed to make Christians complacent and careless?

13. There will be a ‘rapture’, but not to heaven, when Jesus Returns to earth. this will be the gathering of Matthew 24:31 and the rising into the air to meet Him of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Then we Christians will be with His always.
Ref; Darryl Eberhart

 

[Wormwood]

Spiritualizing is trying to reach deeper hidden meanings in a scripture passage that is not necessarily there, and many times is nothing more than putting a spin on a passage to make it match what the interpreter is wanting the passage to mean. There are indeed spiritual applications that can be derived from some scripture passages, but when the passage does not call for that, in other words, when the plain sense of the passage makes sense, then there is no justification for it to make any another sense.

Perhaps a better word for what you are looking for is "allegorizing." Certainly the Bible is filled with spiritual fulfillments of physical foreshadows. The entire book of Hebrews pretty much focuses on this alone.

While Revelation does have what some would call symbolic and spiritual content, it is also the Grand Central Station of prophecy. Virtually everything in the Revelation has been mentioned elsewhere in scripture. It is taking those previous references along with what is being said in Revelation that one then can ascertain a better understanding of the passage. Since it is indeed the "Grand Central Station" of Bible prophecy and everything can be referenced elsewhere in scripture, then if it is not future, then that means all the references to the future outlined in the OT is not future either. But I still don't seen the temple built that Ezekiel spent several chapters on, for one. And when you combine with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and most of the other prophets, they must have been just kidding us. I still haven't seen national Israel recognize their sin of rejection of the Messiah and call out for His return, as outlined in Hosea. Many of these things are what Revelation is showing.

I agree that most of what Revelation speaks of has been mentioned in the OT. However, you still fail to affirm that most of the NT references to OT passages have "spiritual" fulfillments. Was John the Baptist literally Elijah? Was Jesus literally a "lamb without blemish." Isn't Christian "circumcision" that of the heart, rather than the flesh? Isn't the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah for Judah and Israel fulfilled in the body and blood of Jesus and therefore focused on the Israel and Judah of faith rather than flesh? (see Hebrews 8:8-12) (Please don't tell me you don't think this prophecy by Jeremiah is yet to be fulfilled!!)

I think perhaps much of your struggle with the prophecies of the OT still needing fulfilled is your assumptions going into the text. Surely you would have rejected Jesus' claims that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. After all, Jesus, we need to go with the "plain" reading of the text. ALL the Old Covenant points to Jesus. To suggest that much of the OT was not fulfilled in Jesus, I believe, is a huge misreading of the OT and not consistent with how the NT writers or Jesus read those same passages.

But that somewhat denies how salvation is purchased to begin with, and avoids that even faith is a gift from God. There are myriads of passages that clearly outline that the Messiah is the only means of salvation.

I think you have a very limited understanding of views other than your own which causes you to misrepresent them. Perhaps a professor at your seminary or church pastor has characterized other views as a means to solidify the one you are taught in class. However, I assure you that your presentation of these views is very skewed. First, you are making an assumption that "saving faith" is a gift from God (i.e. God chooses to give this give to some and predetermine the condemnation of others by withholding that gift). I find this to be both a big assumption and error. Romans 12:3 means that God has measured out (distributed) to each Christian a spiritual gift that is appropriate to his own faith. The gift here is the spiritual gift (gift of teaching, gift of generosity, gift of prophecy, etc.). I.e., the “measure of faith God has given you” (NIV) is the spiritual gift; the Spirit “measures out” these gifts according to our own faith. Paul is not talking at all about conversion. In a similar way, 1 Corinthians 12:9 has nothing to do with saving faith. It refers to miracle-working faith as one of the gifts of the Spirit given to some Christians (see 1 Cor. 13:2). Likewise, Galatians 5:22 refers not to saving faith as such, but to faithfulness in Christian living as part of the fruit of the Spirit. It is very evident by the contexts of these gifts that they have nothing to do with salvation and I believe it is misleading to use them as such. Moreover, Eph. 2:8 is not referring to "faith" as the gift. The rules of Greek grammar do not allow this. Colossians 2:12 teaches very clearly that faith precedes regeneration, which is in direct contradiction to what you are teaching a person is regenerated in order to receive the gift of faith.
Second, I agree that the Messiah is the only means of salvation. Since when is continuing in our faith in Jesus oppositional to the idea that Jesus is the only means of salvation? Remaining faithful does not make the person of faith the means of salvation. To present it as such is a horrible distortion of a view you clearly have misunderstood. I agree that justification is a one time event. Again, this implication that a person must be a Calvinism to believe Jesus alone saves or justification is a one time event reveals you do not understand other views very well.

That is the primary meaning of dispensationalism. It has taken on a different context by those that have issues with it, but that is not the problem of the original meaning.

I find it astounding that you can accuse Amillennialists of "heresy" when it is a view that dates back to the earliest Christian thinkers whereas Dispensationalism was developed in the 1800s by Darby. Are you suggesting that most of the church throughout the past 2000 years were heretics?

As for the Millennial kingdom being real or not, then Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and virtually every prophet of the OT were scribbling stuff that had no meaning.

Yet another assumption on your part that reveals your presuppositions which have nothing to do with actual hermeneutics. You are importing ideas into the texts rather than drawing them out of the text. Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel say NOTHING about a millennial kingdom. You have imported their prophecies into the book of Revelation and imposed this view on them. This is isogesis, not exegesis.

I am floored that you would suggest Zach 13:7 has yet to be fulfilled, especially when the inspired authors Matthew and Mark disagree with you (Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27).

““Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” (Hosea 6:1–2, ESV) This hasn't been fulfilled yet? You do realize the entire early church that believed Jesus was raised on the 3rd day was entirely Jewish. It wasn't until about a decade passed when Gentiles began to enter the church. For you to suggest that God has yet to heal his people on "the third day" is astounding to me.

I don't mean to come off as condescending here, I hope you don't read it this way. Its just that when you write in such a way that suggests that one has to be a fool not to see dispensationalism in the NT and agree with your views...well it simply indicates that you are not very well educated on other views. I assure you that 1800 years of Christian thinkers were not out to lunch on their views on prophecy. I would encourage you to exercise a little more humility in your approach to challenging other views rather than suggesting they are either blind to plain teaching or are heretical. I would be happy to discuss these ideas is greater detail with you and perhaps we can both learn from each other. However, it may be a good idea to start a new thread relating to something more specific...whatever vein you want to pursue. This is getting a bit unwieldy and I suggest we stick to the topic of the rapture for this tread. We can discuss Calvinism, the Milennium, or Dispensationalism independently in a different thread if you like. Just pick the topic you want to discuss and post a link here and I will join it and we can continue this. Lets just refocus on the rapture for this particular thread...and I see zero biblical justification for the Dispensational definition of a secret, quiet, believers only rapture. The only rapture mentioned in the NT is visible, audible and all inclusive of both believers and non-believers (see 1 These 4-5)

 

[buddyt]

I read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 13. It has nothing to do with this discussion. To imply that it does is again allegorizing the scripture to extreme. This passage deals with the false prophets of Israel, clearly from the context. Those that lead Israel astray. Their judgement would come at the Day of the Lord. One of the reasons of the Great Tribulation is to cause national Israel to realize their sin in rejection of the Messiah, via listening to their false prophets, and call for His return. And He will rescue them, even from their false prophets as well.

You are doing the same thing as Keras. You are confusing separate events.

Ezekiel 13 This chapter is devoted to False Teachings and False Prophets as you noted. The part you have wrong is that it doesn't apply to all. The word of our Father is written for all. It's not just pointing to any one group. Ezekiel 13:20 Father is telling YOU he is against this teaching. Whether you like it or not. It's nothing personal against you. Christians all over believe this lie man created back in the 1800s and refuse to believe the word of God. I believe the first words out of Satan's mouth will be IM here to fly you away. Shamefully People like you will jump right in.

 

[Copperhead]

Ezekiel 13 This chapter is devoted to False Teachings and False Prophets as you noted. The part you have wrong is that it doesn't apply to all. The word of our Father is written for all. It's not just pointing to any one group. Ezekiel 13:20 Father is telling YOU he is against this teaching. Whether you like it or not. It's nothing personal against you. Christians all over believe this lie man created back in the 1800s and refuse to believe the word of God. I believe the first words out of Satan's mouth will be IM here to fly you away. Shamefully People like you will jump right in.

Since the teaching we are discussing is not actually mentioned in that passage, it would be equally applicable to you being wrong. You are using circular reasoning. Like "I think your teaching is false so this passage refers to you, and because this passage refers to you, I think that teaching is false". Classic circular reasoning. Still not persuaded in the least to discard the position I hold. I know in whom I have placed my trust.

 

[Copperhead]

I am floored that you would suggest Zach 13:7 has yet to be fulfilled, especially when the inspired authors Matthew and Mark disagree with you (Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27).

It is indeed a stretch of significant magnitude to apply what Jesus said to His disciples that night before His arrest as applying to the prophesy of Hosea that you imply.

But lets look at the verse of Hosea 5:15 that preceded it. It says that the Lord would return to His place until they acknowledge their offense. For Him to return to His place, He had to have left it. That is clearly a reference to the Messiah. And a specific offense, that of national rejection. The verse following that is the one you are trying to apply the above passages to, but it refers to the previous verse in that passage in Hosea. You are doing what you claim I am, cherry picking verses out of context to support your position.

You are using the methodology that works like this.....

"This verse says "Judas hanged himself" and this verse says "go thou and do likewise", so that must be a scriptural mandate."

You said you didn't mean to be condescending, but that is what you were doing. You state that and then turn around and suggest I, and anyone who thinks the same, are fools for doing so. That is like saying "no pun intended" when in fact the person saying that is trying to draw the readers attention to the fact that is what the writer in intending. When this kind of thing happens, i know I have struck gold. You indeed meant to be condescending and you wanted anyone reading it to make sure that they picked up on that.

 

[Wormwood]

It is indeed a stretch of significant magnitude to apply what Jesus said to His disciples that night before His arrest as applying to the prophesy of Hosea that you imply.

But lets look at the verse of Hosea 5:15 that preceded it. It says that the Lord would return to His place until they acknowledge their offense. For Him to return to His place, He had to have left it. That is clearly a reference to the Messiah. And a specific offense, that of national rejection. The verse following that is the one you are trying to apply the above passages to, but it refers to the previous verse in that passage in Hosea. You are doing what you claim I am, cherry picking verses out of context to support your position.

You are using the methodology that works like this.....

"This verse says "Judas hanged himself" and this verse says "go thou and do likewise", so that must be a scriptural mandate."

You said you didn't mean to be condescending, but that is what you were doing. You state that and then turn around and suggest I, and anyone who thinks the same, are fools for doing so. That is like saying "no pun intended" when in fact the person saying that is trying to draw the readers attention to the fact that is what the writer in intending. When this kind of thing happens, i know I have struck gold. You indeed meant to be condescending and you wanted anyone reading it to make sure that they picked up on that.

Copperhead,

I dont think you have read my comments very carefully. First, I have done nothing with Hosea 5:15. I simply quoted Matthew and Mark who referred to it in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, it was they who cited this verse as being fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion, not me. Why else would they have cited it? Are you suggesting they did not understand Hosea's context properly when citing the verse and that they were misapplying it?
How am I cherry-picking verses out of context? I simply cited the fact that these verses were quoted by Matthew and Mark as being fulfilled in Jesus. Can you show me how I am misusing Mark or Matthew in this regard?
I said nothing about a "scriptural mandate" suggesting people should commit suicide. Please refer specifically to how you believe I am misapplying Scripture and I would be happy to examine these hermeneutical principles. I would recommend a book to you by GK Beale on how the NT utilizes the OT.
Finally, again I do not think you are reading my post very carefully. I never called you a fool. I stated that your writing indicates that you believe those who disagree with dispensationalism to be either heretical or fools. I certainly do not believe you are a fool. You seem fairly well read and educated. I simply believe you are mistaken and do not fully understand the views you are undermining.

Again, lets shift gears to discuss the rapture. Where do you see this doctrine taught in the Scriptures? If you would like to discuss Calvinism or Dispensationalism, I would be happy to engage you in this on a different forum.

 

[Copperhead]

I already quoted those passages.

 

[101G]

I side with the pre-trip still. Nothing is scripture leads me to believe that we must endure God's wrath on any level once we have been declared righteous by the finished work of Messiah.

GINOLJC, this is half true,. a. we who are the Lord's, are not appointed to wrath, scripture, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ". now the million dollar question is this, are we REMOVE from WRATH, or delivered from it?. let the scripture answer, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come". so it's no pri-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib removal. nor any pre-wrath removal, or any post wrath removal. but a mid-wrath deliverance from it. scripture, 1 Thessalonians 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". here caught up is not what we think of a rapture. caught up is the Greek word, G726 ἁρπάζω harpazo (har-pa'-zō) v.
to seize. here is the SALVATION, or the seizing. now the question, how or what method of seizing, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first". the key word here is "descend". meaning, To move or pass from a higher to a lower place. here from heaven to EARTH. not to stop in mid air. no, to completely touch the earth. and in our change/deliverance the salvation, we will rise, not be remove, but rise from the wrath, below. this is our salvation.

 

[Copperhead]

That is true. But one also has to compare with the rest of scripture.

Your reference of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is correct. And verse 17 and 18 along with it where it says we will be forever with the Lord. Nothing to indicate that we are gathered to Him as He is executing judgement upon the world. In that instance, it makes no indication that the Lord descends to the point where He actually comes to the earth, or that He is executing His wrath upon the earth. That is key here. Messiah will indeed come to gather His bride. And some disagreement is allowed as to when that occurs.... pre, mid, or pre wrath are the only real options open for debate. But Post trib and such lose a lot of traction.

Now we take a look at other passages, like:

Isaiah 63:1-3 (NKJV) Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah,This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?—“I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”
2 Why is Your apparel red,And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?
3 “I have trodden the winepress alone,And from the peoples no one was with Me.For I have trodden them in My anger,And trampled them in My fury;Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments,And I have stained all My robes.

And compare with:

Revelation 19:11-14 (NKJV) Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.

Those that are the bride, we are clothed in fine linen, white and clean, and follow Him. And this is after heaven is opened, so we must have already been there. When John is given The Revelation of Jesus, those in heaven are seen dressed in white robes. From all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. Clearly, those that have been redeemed.

It becomes apparent that there are two appearances of the Messiah. One to gather His bride, and one where He is coming to execute wrath upon the earth. Nothing to indicate that both are the same event.

But as for Pre-Trib vs the others, it is the only one that comports with "no man knows the day or the hour".

Matthew 24:36 (NKJV) “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

If the event that triggers this period has happened, i.e. the covenant made between the false messiah and Israel is known, and it will be, and the time where he sets himself up to be worshiped in the Temple at the mid point per Daniel 9:27, then all events from the start of these things can be known as to timing. And this event of the false messiah setting himself up to be worshiped in the temple could not have occurred in 70 AD. The temple was destroyed in that event. No one could have set themselves up to be worshiped in the temple in that event. So Peterism falls on it's face also. Especially since Revelation was written after 70 AD.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, you quoted those verses, but I am asking how I am applying them out of context. Matthew and Mark are the ones who suggested that they refer to the crucifixion of Jesus, not me. Again, I am asking you if you feel they were in error for quoting those in reference to the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus, since you seem to think that they only apply to something that will take place during this "Great Tribulation" over 2000 years removed from the crucifixion.

 

[Copperhead]

Yes, you quoted those verses, but I am asking how I am applying them out of context. Matthew and Mark are the ones who suggested that they refer to the crucifixion of Jesus, not me. Again, I am asking you if you feel they were in error for quoting those in reference to the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus, since you seem to think that they only apply to something that will take place during this "Great Tribulation" over 2000 years removed from the crucifixion.

The text of Ezekiel does not say anything, or remotely refer, to the shepherd being smitten and the sheep scattered that is said in Matthew and Mark you posted. Those verses are direct quotes of Zechariah 13:7, not Ezekiel 13 that I was countering.

But even then in, were 2/3rds of all Jewish people destroyed at this time the shepherd was smitten as exclaimed later in the Zechariah passage? Hardly. Not even 2/3 of the entirety of Jewish people were destroyed in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish revolt against Rome in 135 AD should kill that idea. 2/3 of all Jewry were not destroy in that event either. And Hitler, with all his nonsense, only killed about 1/3 of Jews alive. This passage is like Isaiah 61, that Jesus used to introduce His ministry when he got up to read in the synagogue. He quoted the passage, but stopped at the middle of verse 2. There was a reason for that... Jesus did not come to execute the day of vengeance of God at that time. And that portion of Verse 2 has yet to be fulfilled. Jesus only claimed the prophecy He actually read was fulfilled in their eyes. There are definite gaps in prophecy fulfillment in view. In Zechariah and here in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-2 (NKJV) “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;

It is a similar situation in what Daniel described in chapter 9. There is a definite physical time gap between verse 26 and 27.

 

[Wormwood]

Copperhead,

I am at a loss here. When did I ever reference Ezekiel, or when did you "counter" my response to your comment about Zech 13:7-9 or Hosea 6:2? You seem to be jumping from text to text and I am simply trying to understand your hermeneutical approach to a text such as Zech 13:7. In my opinion, the temple texts in Ezekiel are an entirely different issue that I am not trying to tackle at this time. So let us just try to deal with one text at a time.
So, your opinion is that Zech. 13:7 does refer to the crucifixion, but there is a gap between vs 7 and 8-9...that is at least 2,000 years in duration?

I guess my question from here is, "How can this be understood as the 'plain sense' of Zech 13:7-9? I mean, apart from your own eschatological lens, would any average person pick up this text and automatically recognize that 1) it is referring to the crucifixion and 2) that there is a 2,000 year gap between verse 7 and 8?

Likewise, how is it that you can claim the "plain sense" of Hosea 6:2 is eschatological rather than referring to the resurrection and the immediate benefits of forgiveness and salvation provided to both Israel and the believing Gentiles? After all, doesn't Peter say,

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (1 Peter 2:24-25).

So why isn't the plain sense of such a passage that this healing and restoration Hosea is speaking about referring to believers who have been healed through the cross of Christ rather than physical Israel, a physical Temple and national restoration?

I would also disagree with your assessment of Daniel 9:26-27. Why is it "definite"? Would a second century BC Jew read that passage and "definately" conclude that there would be a 2,000 year gap there in fulfillment? Maybe you are right, but you are certainly overstating your case. This idea that there is a "plain sense" of these prophecies that the entire church did not see for 1800 years only shows that it is not that plain, unless, of course, you have been trained into reading Scripture in this very particular dispensational method created by John Darby. My point is simply that your "plain sense" hermeneutics are not plain at all. Maybe you are right, but you need to abandon this notion that the most basic reading of these texts is yours and that it is obvious to everyone. It simply is not.

As for Daniel 9, I do not see a gap there at all. The angel is very clear to Daniel what the focus of this vision is..

"to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place"

All of these events took place at the cross. All of Daniel 9 leads to the cross. I see no gap there, nor do I think the "plain sense" of interpreting this prophecy would lend any person to see as much, unless their eschatology depended on it quite independently from anything the text itself actually teaches.

 

[Copperhead]

The very same way I can easily see the gap between Messiah's first coming and the day of vengeance of the Lord in Isaiah 61:2. Jesus Himself was the authority on that one. He quoted up to the middle of that passage and closed the book, and stated clearly that the passage he had just read was fulfilled in their eyes, speaking to the congregation at the synagogue where He read it. He did not read the latter part of verse 2 regarding the vengeance of God, so did not confirm it had been fulfilled in their hearing, and it has yet to be fulfilled.

Also, Daniel 9:26 was clearly completed at the time of Jesus' crucifixion and the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That was a gap of almost 40 years. The temple has yet to be rebuilt, so Verse 27 has yet to be fulfilled. If one cannot get their mind around the 70 weeks of Daniel prophecy, then they have a tough time dealing with a lot of the future prophecies. It is cornerstone. He made a point to delineate the 69 weeks from the final 70th week, and that all these 70 weeks of years pertain to Israel. "Your People" as told to Daniel. And we know that 69 weeks of years after the decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, Jesus came on the scene and fulfilled verse 26. There were two decrees issued at the end of the captivity in Babylon. One to rebuild the temple, and a later one to rebuild the city. Jesus held everyone around Him accountable to know this prophecy as evidenced by his statement in Luke 19:44. Thereby, Jesus Himself was the authority to view Daniel 9 in this way.

Jesus himself stated that when one sees the Abonimation of Desolation (the false Messiah) standing in the temple to flee. That is a direct reference to Daniel 9:27. See Matthew 24:15 and further. So a future temple is clearly in view as the temple that stood during Jesus' time was destroyed in 70 AD and the false messiah did not stand in the temple from the time of Jesus to that destruction. So it is a future setting when there will be a temple. And over 500 priests are in training in Israel today in preparation for the rebuilding of the temple. And in this Matthew reference, Jesus Himself states there will be "great tribulation" that has never been or that ever will be till the time of this fulfillment. Even Hitler's massacre of Jewish people exceeded the Romans in 70 AD. So there is no way it could apply to the 70 AD thing or anything else. There is yet to be Great Tribulation that has never occurred in human history.

And the portion of Daniel 9:26 that states that the "end of it shall be with a flood" can easily be a shown in the analysis of the Hebrew behind it as a prediction of the diaspora of the Jewish people that has gone on from then till recently.

Now those are two examples that comport solidly with the Mosaic Law prescription that an issue can only be confirmed on the testimony of two witnesses. And if one digs a little, they can find other examples. If my viewing of these passages is flawed, then so was Jesus'. I rest on His authority to view them this way. If others don't see it this way, that is not my concern. Their concern is with Jesus, as He saw it this way.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, again, I think you are reading into the text. Jesus often did not quote entire passages he was referring to...which didn't always mean he wasn't fulfilling the entire passage. Jesus quoted to the Pharisees that they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds...he left off the part that he would make his enemies the footstool of his feet. Does this mean that there will be a gap between Christ's return in the clouds and his judgment on the wicked? No, I dont think so. Moreover, Isaiah 61:2 also says "to comfort those who mourn" and in verse 3 it says, "and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair."

Are you saying that the ministry of Jesus has yet to provide comfort and give his people joy and fill them with praise and plant them in righteousness?!

Also, I strongly reject your claim that Daniel 9:27 has yet to be fulfilled. So, you are claiming that Jesus has yet to confirm a covenant or put an end to sacrifice and offering? Of course, you dont read it this way and you see some Antichrist figure here...which again speaks more to what you are reading into the text rather than what the text actually says.

Saying "clearly" repeatedly does not make your interpretations any more "clear" to anyone but those who already hold your predispositions prior to reading the text. Again, I am just trying to point out that this "clear" and "plain sense" reading is only clear and plain to those who already have a predetermined dispensational view prior to approaching the text.

In my view, the entire prophecy of Daniel 9 is pointed to exactly what the angel said...the atonement of sin and establishment of righteousness, which took place a the cross. Jesus confirmed his new covenant with his body and blood and established it with his disciples through the breaking of bread, declaring, "this is my blood of the new covenant..." Halfway through his ministry (3.5 years) Jesus "put an end to sacrifice and offering" by offering himself once for all. Jesus became sin for us and his body, the true temple, was destroyed which led to "the abomination which causes desolation." Jesus HIMSELF quotes this passage in Daniel referring to the judgment that would come on Jerusalem because of their rejection of him.

Just look at Matthew 23. Jesus condemns the wickedness of the religious leaders with a series of woes. Then he laments over Jerusalem and says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you DESOLATE. Fore I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.""

Thus, the abomination is the rejection of the Messiah and his murder. The desolation points the the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that took place in 70 AD as a result of the people's rejection of their Messiah.

In my opinion, this is the "plain sense" of the passage. No need to import Antichrists, rebuilt Temples or 2,000 year gaps into Daniel's prophecy. It all points to the coming of the time when sin would be atoned for and desolation would occur because the people rejected the Son of God. See also the parable preceding Matt 23 in Matthew 21:33-46 where Jesus also points to the destruction the tenants due to their mistreatment of the Son. In Mark's account, he declares "and burned their city."

 

[Copperhead]

Prove that Jesus did not view them the way I mentioned. What you think, what I think, what you feel, what I feel is all irrelevant.

And you are playing mind games. I did say that the passage Jesus read, he confirmed that it was being fulfilled to them. That would include the joy, comfort, etc that you mention. You didn't pick up on that from what He read? He did not read the part about the vengeance of God. So that is future.

Yes, of course He said those things in Matthew 23. And it was in keeping with Daniel 9:26. The Abomination of Desolation is not the 70 AD event. It was in comparison to the Antiochus event that happened before Jesus and gave us the Feast of Hannukah, which Jesus Himself recognized.

John 10:22 (NKJV) Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter.

Hannukah was the dedication of the Temple when it was taken back from Antiochus after he had desecrated it by sacrificing a pig on the alter. Those around Him knew exactly what Jesus was referring to in making His statement about a future event of the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. And what is your evidence, in assuming that verse 27 applies to 70 AD, that Rome confirmed a covenant with Israel for a week of years and broke it at the mid week point? Nothing in the writing of antiquity mentions such an event. Josephus, probably the best accounts we have of this entire period, makes no reference to such a covenant. Daniel says that the sacrifices would be cut off at the mid point. Sacrifices continued right up the time Rome sacked the city and destroyed the temple.

And when was anything of Rome seen as standing IN the Holy Place seen by anyone and there is any record of from this period? "the holy place" is the temple. Rome destroyed the temple, took it apart brick by brick to retrieve the gold that had melted when the temple was set on fire, but neither they or any Roman leader stood in it.

Matthew 24:15 (NKJV) “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

It could not be much clearer short of CNN broadcasting a news bulletin from the place in 70 AD. Desolations, yes. The Abomination of Desolation, no.