Nearness of the Rapture

[OneLight]

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?

I said it once, so I will say it again, but in a different way so you may find understanding in it.

When a person talks a lot and just throws references to scripture in to back up their words, they think more highly of what they are saying then scripture itself. When a person inputs scripture and then discusses the scripture they brought forth, they place their emphasis on the scripture. By likening your posts to Hebrews, I wonder how highly you think of your words and teachings? By doing this, are you teaching your understanding or scripture?

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

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

Where was it said that you said that?

When you refused my explanation and imparted your understanding as the correct one.

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?

Well now, in the first place I was speaking to BoldBeliever, not you, and to us, it was relevant.

[OneLight]

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

I don't feel it, I know it is highly allegorical. That is established fact. What I don't understand is why you, who claim to be a student of the Bible, insist that Revelation is a literal account of the future end of the world in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I see Revelation being both literal and allegorical. We must rightly divide scripture.

[Bible2]

OneLight said:

No, they were not.

Actually, in post #304, your words in post #300 were taken in their context, which was your 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 was replied to accordingly, in post #304.

OneLight said:

I explained to you what I meant.

Not in post #300. And not before it was replied to in post #304.

OneLight said:

Do you really believe you know me better then I do??

What has been said that implied that?

OneLight said:

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.

What has been said that was arrogant, proud, blind, or implied that you didn't know what you meant in post #300?

OneLight said:

Let me try this again. This time, I will make it easier for you to follow.

Do you mean that you'll restate what wasn't stated in post #300 or before it was replied to in post #304?

OneLight said:

Can you see it now?

It was seen the first time, in your explanation in post #306.

OneLight said:

I said it once, so I will say it again, but in a different way so you may find understanding in it.

Your complaint about references-only was understood (and was also fully addressed) the first time you made it.

But did what you said in post #311 mean (or include) that your reply in post #300 was "not replying to anything you have been posting, except that you present it better"?

If so, as was asked in post #315, how would typing everything out from scratch every time present it better? Also, must scripture quotations be typed out from scratch every time in order to present them better? If so, why? And if not, then why must every part of a discussion of the scriptures be typed out from scratch every time in order to present it better?

OneLight said:

When a person talks a lot . . .

Who has talked a lot, if the entire book of Hebrews should be considered as being only a few words (Hebrews 13:22)?

OneLight said:

. . . and just throws references to scripture in to back up their words, they think more highly of what they are saying then scripture itself.

Note that being careful to give scripture references isn't "just throwing them in", nor is it in any way thinking more highly of the doctrinal statements preceding the references than the referenced scriptures themselves. For the whole reason that scripture references have been carefully placed beside doctrinal statements is precisely because we must never be saying, in effect, "What I'm saying is true because I'm saying it", but must always be saying, in effect, "What I'm saying is true because it's what God's word teaches" (cf. Acts 17:11).

Also, the reason that references (instead of quotations) have been given is because there should be no need to give quotations in replies to a discussion like this one, where all of the people who have posted clearly already know what the Bible says. The point of the discussion is to get at what the Bible actually means. That's why verses haven't just been referenced, but referenced in connection with statements regarding what those verses mean.

To make someone take the time to read long lists of quotations imbedded in a post could make him forget (or never take the time to get to) the points that were made in the post regarding what those quotations mean.

Also, just giving references allows the reader to more easily move past any statements which he already agrees with, and focus on any subsequent statements which he may have a problem with, instead of him having to search through long lists of quotations to find the next statement by the poster and see if he agrees with it or not. This saves the reader a lot of time.

Also, just giving references allows the reader to keep different posts as summary reference guides to the proof texts of positions he agrees with or disagrees with, instead of him having to keep (for reference) posts with such long lists of quotations that they're like mini-Bibles in themselves. We all already have complete Bibles, what do we need with mini-Bibles?

Also, Christians must never trust anyone claiming to be giving quotations of the Bible; everything quoted must always be checked by actually searching the Bible itself (Acts 17:11), in a good translation (or in its original languages), in order to avoid being deceived by an incorrect translation.

Also, it takes almost no time at all to search references in a good translation, for Bible Gateway provides instant quotations in good translations, even for long lists of scripture references (they don't have to be looked up one at a time).

OneLight said:

When a person inputs scripture and then discusses the scripture they brought forth, they place their emphasis on the scripture.

Not necessarily. For their discussion could still place emphasis on their interpretation of what the quoted scripture means. And their interpretation could be entirely wrong.

Also, even where their discussion places emphasis solely on what the quoted scripture itself says, this could be placing emphasis on what only a faulty translation says, so that their discussion isn't focused on what the scripture itself says (in its original language, or in a good translation).

(Continued)

Edited September 27, 2010 by Bible2

[Bible2]

(Continued)

OneLight said:

By likening your posts to Hebrews, I wonder how highly you think of your words and teachings?

Note that it's only the length of Hebrews (not its divinely-inspired authority) that has been brought up as a counter to the accusation of too-lengthy posts. For even the length of the entire book of Hebrews should be considered as short (Hebrews 13:22).

OneLight said:

By doing this, are you teaching your understanding or scripture?

What is being posted is an understanding of scripture. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this understanding is true or not.

We all already agree on what the Bible says; where we differ is in what it means. The purpose of this discussion is to determine what it means.

OneLight said:

When you refused my explanation and imparted your understanding as the correct one.

What explanation was refused? All that was pointed out in post #315 was that there was no explanation in post #300 itself, and so it was replied to accordingly, in post #304.

OneLight said:

Well now, in the first place I was speaking to BoldBeliever, not you . . .

Ah, but you quoted his attack in its entirety without disagreeing with any of it, so that your confirmation of something he said made it appear as if what you said was in support of his attack.

OneLight said:

. . . and to us, it was relevant.

How, to you, is what you said in post #300 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.

---

But let's avoid any further distraction, in order that the discussion of the actual subject of this thread can move forward.

What are your views regarding the scriptural points that have been raised in connection with the subject of this thread, such as the following two points?

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).

Edited September 27, 2010 by Bible2

[Bible2]

PaulT said:

I don't feel it, I know it is highly allegorical.

How do you know that?

PaulT said:

That is established fact.

How has it been proven to be a fact?

PaulT said:

What I don't understand is why you, who claim to be a student of the Bible, insist that Revelation is a literal account of the future end of the world in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence proves that Revelation isn't almost entirely literal? For 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).

Also, what overwhelming evidence proves that the highly-detailed, myriad events described in Revelation chapters 6-22 happened in the past? How was each event fulfilled?

---

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)?

Edited September 27, 2010 by Bible2

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

No, they were not.

Actually, in post #304, your words in post #300 were taken in their context, which was your 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 was replied to accordingly, in post #304.

I stand by my explanation. Whether or not you pride and arrogance allows you to see it is another issue.

[Bible2]

PaulT said:

Because I've studied it.

What did you find in your study of Revelation that proved to you that it 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)?

[Bible2]

OneLight said:

I stand by my explanation. Whether or not you pride and arrogance allows you to see it is another issue.

Your explanation was seen the first time you gave it, in post #306.

What has been said that was proud, arrogant, or implied that your explanation hasn't been seen?

---

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

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).

Edited September 28, 2010 by Bible2

[OneLight]

OneLight said:

I stand by my explanation. Whether or not you pride and arrogance allows you to see it is another issue.

Your explanation was seen the first time you gave it, in post #306.

What has been said that was proud, arrogant, or implied that your explanation hasn't been seen?

Your refusal to accept what I say about what I was talking about and the continuation of you saying you took my words in context, which is not correct.