Nearness of the Rapture

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

It is cut-and-paste. He does the same thing on other sites.

How would typing out everything in its entirety change what has been said?

How has what has been said been proven false?

Twitching for an argument? I never once said anything about what you post, only that you don't type it. Cool your jets.

[Bible2]

PaulT said:

How has it been shown to be true? The burden of proof is on the one who asserts.

The assertion that the rapture can't be near in a pre-trib sense of near, because the rapture will be post-trib, has been shown to be true by reference to what the Bible itself shows:

Jesus won't return and gather together (rapture) the church until immediately after the coming tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27) of Revelation chapters 6-18, which hasn't started yet, and which could take some seven years to transpire.

Jesus can't return and gather together (rapture) the church until sometime after there's a falling away (an apostasy) in the church and the Antichrist sits in a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem and declares himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Matthew 24:9-31, Daniel 11:31,36, Revelation 11:1-2). For when Jesus returns to gather together (and marry) the church he will destroy the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1,8, Revelation 19:7,20).

Before Jesus returns, the church will have to go through the world-reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-31).

At Jesus' return, his second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15, Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26), the church will be caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27) into the sky to have a meeting in the air with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

At that meeting, Jesus will judge the church (Psalms 50:4-5, cf. Mark 13:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Luke 12:45-48) and then marry the church (Revelation 19:7) in the clouds, before the church mounts white horses and descends back down from sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) to reign on the earth with him for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

How has this been shown to be false?

---

The assertion that our ultimate salvaton will be based on our works has also been shown to be true by reference to what the Bible itself shows:

Just as we didn't have to do any works to be physically born, so we didn't have to do any works to be born again, initially saved. But while initial salvation is by faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4), both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Titus 3:8) are required in order to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Philippians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 5:9, Matthew 7:21, 2 Peter 1:10-11, Hebrews 5:9, Revelation 22:14, Hebrews 6:10-12, Philippians 3:11-14, Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).

How has this been shown to be false?

---

The assertion that salvation can in the end be lost has also been shown to be true by reference to what the Bible itself shows:

One way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26-29, 1 Corinthians 9:27, Matthew 24:48-51, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13, 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8, Matthew 7:21, James 2:24, Philippians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 5:9, Revelation 22:14, Hebrews 5:9, 2 Peter 1:10-11, Hebrews 6:10-12, Philippians 3:11-14).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to commit apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6, 2 Timothy 2:12, Mark 8:35-38, Matthew 24:9-13, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Matthew 13:21, Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Hebrews 10:38-39, 2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to not help a Christian in need, without repentance (Matthew 25:41-46).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to not provide for his own family, without repentance (1 Timothy 5:8).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to commit the unforgivable sin, which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29). An example of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is saying that an act performed by the power of the Holy Spirit is performed by Satan (Mark 3:22-30).

Another way that a saved person can in the end lose his salvation is if he wrongly employs his will to remove words from the text of the book of Revelation, and then publishes the altered text as if it were the original, without repentance (Revelation 22:19).

A saved person can in the end be cut off the same as an unbeliever if he doesn't continue in God's goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46). A saved person can in the end have his name blotted out of the book of life if he doesn't overcome unto the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26).

How has this been shown to be false?

---

PaulT said:

[Regarding the nearness of the rapture]

...closer than yesterday

Amen (cf. Romans 13:11b).

Edited September 24, 2010 by Bible2

[Bible2]

OneLight said:

Twitching for an argument?

No (2 Corinthians 12:20, Romans 1:29b).

How was what was asked twitching for an argument?

OneLight said:

I never once said anything about what you post, only that you don't type it.

A lot of what has been posted has been typed.

The questions which were asked about what you said were: how would typing out everything change what has been said, and how has what's been said been proven false?

What was meant by these questions was: what does it matter that some of what's been said has been typed out and some of it hasn't, since this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what's been said?

The questions were asked because there had been a lot of focus lately in this thread on things that don't matter at all, a focus on mere distractions from discussing the important scriptural points that have been made, such as those summarized in the post above.

OneLight said:

Cool your jets.

How was what was asked hot jets?

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

Twitching for an argument?

No (2 Corinthians 12:20, Romans 1:29b).

How was what was asked twitching for an argument?

OneLight said:

I never once said anything about what you post, only that you don't type it.

A lot of what has been posted has been typed.

The questions which were asked about what you said were: how would typing out everything change what has been said, and how has what's been said been proven false?

What was meant by these questions was: what does it matter that some of what's been said has been typed out and some of it hasn't, since this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what's been said?

The questions were asked because there had been a lot of focus lately in this thread on things that don't matter at all, a focus on mere distractions from discussing the important scriptural points that have been made, such as those summarized in the post above.

OneLight said:

Cool your jets.

How was what was asked hot jets?

Very simple. You feel like you have to defend what people are saying to the point of assuming the worst about what people say. You assume that I was answer the question about it being the truth when I never once mentioned the word truth or lie in my post. Yet, because you are defensive, you read my words according to your feelings, not according to what I posted. In doing so, you replied as such:

How would typing out everything in its entirety change what has been said?

How has what has been said been proven false?

Yes, I am sure that you have typed your response to make it personal, but tell the truth, have you not been cutting and pasting a lot of what you present? I have Googled some of your posts and can find them on other sites.

As I mentioned earlier, your posts are extremely long winded and I don't have the luxury of time to dig through all you present to ensure that it is true or not, so I am not replying to anything you have been posting, except that you present it better.

Now, reread my words and tell me where I said you lied, then I will retract my statement of observation about your reply. (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)

[Fraught]

Methinks Bible2 is a bot. If you have the time to go back and look at some of the stuff he's posted, it's repetitive. Macabre flesh puppets, etc. No one individual can sit there and type the same thing over and over and over again with such accuracy. Regardless, bot or no, his theology is still full of bull leavings. It's an insult to the blood of Christ. And it appears that Fraught has managed to fall for at least some of it, since he thinks whatever he/she/it is speaks 'with authority.'

All of you who read Bible2's tomes, beware...there's a snake in that woodpile.

It is cut-and-paste. He does the same thing on other sites.

don't be silly; the posts are mostly scripture. i guess i've fallen for scripture, LOL. to get serious for a minute, tho, i always have taken Jesus at His Word when He said "if you love me, obey my commands". i thought all Christians took Jesus seriously. this thread has sure shown me the errors in my thinking.

[Fraught]

Methinks Bible2 is a bot. If you have the time to go back and look at some of the stuff he's posted, it's repetitive. Macabre flesh puppets, etc. No one individual can sit there and type the same thing over and over and over again with such accuracy. Regardless, bot or no, his theology is still full of bull leavings. It's an insult to the blood of Christ. And it appears that Fraught has managed to fall for at least some of it, since he thinks whatever he/she/it is speaks 'with authority.'

All of you who read Bible2's tomes, beware...there's a snake in that woodpile.

It is cut-and-paste. He does the same thing on other sites.

don't be silly; the posts are mostly scripture. i guess i've fallen for scripture, LOL. to get serious for a minute, tho, i always have taken Jesus at His Word when He said "if you love me, obey my commands". i thought all Christians took Jesus seriously. this thread has certainly show that thought to be gravely mistaken.

[Bible2]

PaulT said:

...assuming that Revelation is speaking of a still-future event.

Do you assume that Revelation chapters 6-22 are speaking of past events?

If so, how was each event in Revelation chapters 6-22 fulfilled in the past?

PaulT said:

There is no such individual identified in Scripture as "the Antichrist."

Note that the idea of the Antichrist doesn't have to be explicitly referred to in Scripture as "the Antichrist" in order for it to be true and supported by Scripture, just as, for example, the idea of the Trinity doesn't have to be explicitly referred to in Scripture as "the Trinity" in order for it to be true and supported by Scripture.

The individual man commonly called "the Antichrist" is the singular "antichrist" who will come (1 John 2:18), the individual "man of sin" who will sit in a third Jewish temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Daniel 11:36), the human "beast" who will come (Revelation 13:18) and be worshipped by the whole world (Revelation 13:8). The spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:3) which will animate the coming Antichrist has been working since the first century (2 Thessalonians 2:7), animating many antichrists since that time (1 John 2:18,22, 2 John 1:7).

PaulT said:

Your eschatology is an artificial construct built on the assumption that Revelation describes literal events that have yet to happen.

Note that futurist eschatology isn't an artificial construct, because it's in no way artificial to assume, based on all historical records, that the highly-detailed, myriad events described in Revelation chapters 6-22 never happened in the past. Also, it's in no way artificial to assume that Revelation refers to literal events, because Revelation is an unsealed book (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it shouldn't be difficult for Christians to understand it if they simply read it as it's written: chronologically and almost entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (e.g. Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12), and the extremely few symbols that aren't explained afterward (Revelation 13:2) are explained previously in the Bible (Daniel 7).

PaulT said:

Yet Revelation is a highly allegorical book.

Actually, Revelation is almost entirely literal.

PaulT said:

You also assume that there is a contextual connection between 1 Thessalonians and Revelation.

Note that the connection between 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and Revelation 19:7-20:6 (and 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and Matthew 24:30-31 and Mark 13:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,52-54) is that they refer to the same, as-yet-unfulfilled second coming of Jesus Christ and to the resurrection and rapture (gathering together/catching up together) and marriage of the church at that time, after the as-yet-unfulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18 (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, Revelation 19:7-20:6).

PaulT said:

Both assumptions are axiomatic to the pre-tribulation rapture interpretation yet you assert that the rapture will be post-tribulational. Much like your arguments, your eschatology seems to be cut and paste.

Note that neither futurism per se, nor literalism per se, nor 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, nor Revelation 19:7-20:6 (nor 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, nor Matthew 24:29-31, nor Mark 13:24-27, nor 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,52-54) in any way supports the mistaken idea of a pre-tribulation resurrection and rapture of the church. Instead, when taken together, the scriptures show only a post-tribulation resurrection and rapture of the church.

Also, how does typing out an argument or not have any bearing on its truth or falsity?

What argument has been proven false?

[Bible2]

OneLight said:

Very simple. You feel like you have to defend what people are saying to the point of assuming the worst about what people say. You assume that I was answer the question about it being the truth when I never once mentioned the word truth or lie in my post. Yet, because you are defensive, you read my words according to your feelings, not according to what I posted.

Note that your words in post #300 were taken in their context, which was the quotation of the attacking post #299 in its entirety without your disagreeing with anything that it said, and your only confirming something that it said. Therefore, all your post #300 did was support post #299. Therefore, post #300 needed to be addressed.

OneLight said:

Yes, I am sure that you have typed your response to make it personal, but tell the truth, have you not been cutting and pasting a lot of what you present? I have Googled some of your posts and can find them on other sites.

Yes. But how is this relevant to a discussion of the scriptural points that have been raised in this thread, and not simply a distraction from that discussion? For how does typing out a scriptural point or not typing it out have any bearing on the truth or falsity of that point? What point, whether typed out or not, has been proven false? Note that this last question doesn't have to be read as meaning that you necessarily think that any point is false, but can instead be read as simply questioning the relevancy of what you said.

OneLight said:

As I mentioned earlier, your posts are extremely long winded and I don't have the luxury of time to dig through all you present to ensure that it is true or not, so I am not replying to anything you have been posting, except that you present it better.

What has been long winded, if the entire book of Hebrews should be considered as being only a few words (Hebrews 13:22)?

Also, how can what's been said in this thread be presented better? And how would typing everything out from scratch every time affect its presentation?

OneLight said:

Now, reread my words and tell me where I said you lied, . . .

Where was it said that you said that?

OneLight said:

. . . then I will retract my statement of observation about your reply.

The observation about not typing everything out from scratch is true in regard to some of what's been said. But how is it relevant?

OneLight said:

(1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)

Amen.

In this thread, has something been done contrary to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a, while applying Jude 1:3b, 2 Timothy 4:2, and 1 Corinthians 4:13a?

Note that this question doesn't have to be read as meaning that you necessarily think that something been done contrary to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a, but can instead be read as simply asking if you think that it has, and if so, how.

The question is asked because 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 shows how important it is to act according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a.

Also, so that the discussion of the actual subject of this thread can move forward, what are your views regarding the following points that have been made in connection with the subject of this thread?

1. The rapture can't be near in a pre-trib sense of near, because the rapture won't occur until after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27) of Revelation chapters 6-18, which hasn't started yet, and which could take some seven years to transpire.

2. No matter how near or far the rapture is, until it occurs we must all continue to "Watch" (Mark 13:37, 1 Thessalonians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 16:13, Acts 20:31), meaning that we must all continue to "Stay awake", spiritually, and not fall into any unrepentant sin, or into unrepentant laziness, or into apostasy, to the ultimate loss of our salvation at the rapture and judgment of the church at the second coming (Matthew 24:48-51, Matthew 25:26,30, Mark 8:35-38).

[Bible2]

PaulT said:

False analogy here.

Note that it's not a false analogy.

PaulT said:

The Trinitarian concept of God is easily shown by a survey of scripture.

So is the concept of the Antichrist.

PaulT said:

On the other hand, the idea of the future coming of an individual to be known as "the Antichrist" is an artificial construct, based on partial quotations and false contextual connections.

What false contextual connections?

And what partial quotations have been proven to have been falsely related to the concept of the Antichrist?

PaulT said:

No, it isn't.

Why do you feel that Revelation isn't almost entirely literal?

Also, so that the discussion of the actual subject of this thread can move forward, it's been noted that you've repeatedly said that the rapture is nearer than yesterday, meaning that you believe in a future rapture.

Why do you believe in a future rapture but not a future tribulation, when the rapture (the gathering together/catching up together of the church at the second coming of Jesus Christ: 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) must occur immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27)?

Also, why do you believe in a future rapture but not a future tribulation, when the rapture can't occur until sometime after the man of sin (commonly called the Antichrist, also called the beast) sits in a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem during the tribulation and declares himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15-31, Revelation 11:1-2, Revelation 13:4-8)?

Also, why do you believe in a future rapture but not a future tribulation, when at Jesus' return to rapture and marry the church he will destroy the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1,8, Revelation 19:7,20)?

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

Very simple. You feel like you have to defend what people are saying to the point of assuming the worst about what people say. You assume that I was answer the question about it being the truth when I never once mentioned the word truth or lie in my post. Yet, because you are defensive, you read my words according to your feelings, not according to what I posted.

Note that your words in post #300 were taken in their context, which was the quotation of the attacking post #299 in its entirety without your disagreeing with anything that it said, and your only confirming something that it said. Therefore, all your post #300 did was support post #299. Therefore, post #300 needed to be addressed.

No, they were not. I explained to you what I meant. Do you really believe you know me better then I do?? Not sure if your arrogance or pride is causing you to be so blind, but something is causing you to think you know what I meant more then I do. Let me try this again. This time, I will make it easier for you to follow.

Methinks Bible2 is a bot. If you have the time to go back and look at some of the stuff he's posted, it's repetitive. Macabre flesh puppets, etc. No one individual can sit there and type the same thing over and over and over again with such accuracy. (What I was replying to) Regardless, bot or no, his theology is still full of bull leavings. It's an insult to the blood of Christ. And it appears that Fraught has managed to fall for at least some of it, since he thinks whatever he/she/it is speaks 'with authority.'

All of you who read Bible2's tomes, beware...there's a snake in that woodpile.

It is cut-and-paste. He does the same thing on other sites. (My reply)

Can you see it now?