Multi-Topic -- What is the purpose of the rapture?

[Bible2]

shiloh357 said:

There is not one single commandment in those passages to that effect. Sorry, but you are reading a lot into those passages that are simply not there.

Note that those passages (Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21-5:4, Galatians 3:10,24-25, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14-17) do call for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, to stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

shiloh357 said:

You are reading a lot into Gal. 2:11-21 that is not there. The issue was not about keeping the law. The issue was that we are not justified by the keeping of it. You are confusing issues.

Note that the issue in Galatians 2:11-21 is both that no believers, not even Jews, have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and that no believers, not even Jews, are justified by keeping it. Peter had been rightly living "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews" (Galatians 2:14), because Peter knew the truth that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was a "yoke" which "neither our fathers nor we [Jews] were able to bear" (Acts 15:10), and that "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we [believing Jews] shall be saved, even as they [believing Gentiles]" (Acts 15:11). So in Galatians 2:16, Paul was simply reminding Peter what he already knew. Paul then went on to show that even believing Jews are "dead" to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:19), and that righteousness doesn't come even to Jews by trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:21b), so that believing Jews (just as believing Gentiles) must not "frustrate the grace of God" by trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:21).

shiloh357 said:

Peter and the apostles in Acts 15 laid down the four basic riquirements for table fellowship with Jews. Two of those commandments pertained to dietary issues and if followed would have required any adherant to keep kosher.

Note that the historical account of the forbidding of certain foods at the time of Acts 15:29a isn't in line with the scriptural teachings which show that under the New Covenant all foods are in themselves okay for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14a,20b, Mark 7:18-19, 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17). But it may have seemed good to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) to allow Acts 15:29a as an only-temporary compromise among the church leaders at that time, so that a schism wouldn't arise within the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:25a) so shortly after its inception, between those leaders who at that time still (mistakenly) wanted to continue keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (e.g. Acts 15:21, cf. Acts 21:20b) and those leaders who knew the truth that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was no longer in effect, not even for Jews (Acts 15:10-11, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14).

shiloh357 said:

I find it interesting that you seem to think that it more correct to live after Gentile patterns, that somehow being a Gentile is more in line with the NT than being a Jew.

Living after the manner of believing Gentiles, and not as Jews who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:14), is correct for all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, because it's wrong for believers to try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21-5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).

shiloh357 said:

Yes, they do place themselves under bondage, but the context is conversion to the Jewish religion. That is the part you miss. They were exchanging one form of bondage for another, namely bondage to the authority of the Rabbis.

Rather, they were placing themselves under bondage to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21-5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).

shiloh357 said:

Wrong. There is no such thing as the "Old Covenant Mosaic Law." Covenant and Torah are not interchangable concepts.

Note that they are, for believers placing themselves under the letter of the Mosaic law is placing themselves under the Old Covenant (Galatians 4:21-5:8).

shiloh357 said:

There you go. Notice the different adminstrations. The adminstration of death/condemnation vs. the adminstration of the spirit/righteousness. The two covenants are two different adminstrations of the same set of commandments. The law was not the problem. It was never the problem. The problem lies with man's sin in the face of God's rightesousness and His righteous standard.

Note that it's the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic commandments, "written and engraven in stones" (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 27:8), which is the "ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7) and the "ministration of condemnation" (2 Corinthians 3:9a), which has been "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:11a), which has been "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:13b).

Also, note that the New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 7:12, Hebrews 10), consisting of the commandments given by Jesus Christ himself in the New Testament (John 15:10), such as those commandments he gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19-7:29) and in the writings of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 4:2). These New Covenant commandments far exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there's no reason why any believer should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2-5:26).

Believers can thank God that the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was just a temporary "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24-25), just a temporary "shadow" (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after he'd set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant and long before he brought that promise to fulfillment in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), whereas the New Covenant has replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices (e.g. Leviticus 23:19), whereas the New Covenant has replaced those animal sacrifices with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:22-25), so that those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:22-31).

shiloh357 said:

NOne of those passages made such a claim. What Jesus abolished on the cross, were the sins that we committed. In Ephesians 2:15, Paul is using crucifixion imagery. When criminals were crucified, their crimes were nailed to their cross for all to read in so that they could see why this man's punishment was justified and as a means deterring others from similar behavior. Paul is using that imagery to depict our sins, the very things that we should have died for, being nailed to Jesus' cross and imputed to Him. He in his death on the cross bore away not only our sins but bore away our punishment by satisfying God's justice on our behalf.

Note that when criminals were crucified, nailing notices of their crimes to their crosses didn't abolish those laws which made their actions crimes, whereas when Jesus was crucified, he did abolish the letter of the Old Covenant commandments (Ephesians 2:15-16, Hebrews 7:18-19, Colossians 2:14-17, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), and he established the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28).

shiloh357 said:

Sorry, but that is just intellectual sucide. The precise reason that Paul performed the sacrifices was to refute the charges and that is made clear in the passage. If the charges were true, then performing sacrifices would have contradicted those charges and would have sent a confusing messsage.

Note that the reason that Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a wasn't to refute the charges in Acts 21:21, because Paul's own written words prove that those charges were true (Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21-5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14-17). Instead, Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a because of his principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and also because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy, for the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul wasn't sinning by participating in them.

shiloh357 said:

Sorry, but that is just not true. I don't have the time to do a verse by verse exegesis of every passage you present, but I have read them all, and you are misprepsenting both the context and the substance of all of these passages. The rest of your post is basicaly a rehash and reposting of previous comments.

Note that it hasn't been proven that there has been any misrepresentation of either the context or the substance of any passage.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Bible2

[Bible2]

shiloh357 said:

You obviously are too lazy to respond so I guess you think that reposting the same error counts as a refutation or response, but it doesn't.

What point do you feel hasn't been responded to?

Also, note that no response has been proven to be an error, and that it's a good thing for Christians to continually present the same truths of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2, Philippians 3:1b), even when some people are unwilling to accept those truths (2 Timothy 4:3-4, Galatians 1:10).

Also, imagine that one person posted "1+1=2", but a second person responded with "No, 1+1=3". Then the first person posted "Actually, 1+1=2", but the second person said "You obviously are too lazy to respond so I guess you think that reposting the same error counts as a refutation or response, but it doesn't". How should the first person respond to this?

Also, regarding calling people "lazy", or anything else that's negative, it should be pointed out that we can all get along just fine even though we may have some doctrinal disagreements, so long as we don't fall into ad hominem, that is, so long as we don't take the focus off of a discussion of doctrine and what the Bible says, and instead begin to make personal attacks (Titus 3:2, 2 Timothy 2:24-25, Matthew 5:22b).

shiloh357 said:

Wrong yet again. Paul did not change his colors to suit his audience. He did not eat kosher with the Jews but eat pork with the Greeks. Paul's only point in 1 Cor. 9:20 was his empathy with his hearers. He became as one of them, not culturally, or in daily practice, but intellectually and emotionally. He tailored His message to the needs of his audience. To say that he kept the law among the Jews but did not keep it among the Gentiles is just not suppoorted by Scripture.

Note that Paul could have eaten only kosher foods while he was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (1 Corinthians 9:20), just as Paul could have eaten pork with Gentiles, for Paul knew the truth that under the New Covenant all foods are in themselves okay for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14a,20b, Mark 7:18-19, 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17).

shiloh357 said:

Paul's life and ministry would have been fraudulent in the eyes of his audiences. Preaching against the law one day and then keeping it the next would present a lot of credibility problems for Paul in the eyes of his audiences. You interpretation is simiply erroneous and should not be taken seriously.

Rather, it's just the opposite. For when Paul was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, his merely acting like he also was under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (1 Corinthians 9:20, e.g. Acts 21:26) was precisely in order to maintain his credibility among those Jews, in the hope that this credibility would give him sufficient continued access to those Jews (cf. Acts 16:3), give him enough more time with them to where he might be able to gradually persuade them to accept his (correct) point of view (1 Corinthians 9:20).

[Guest shiloh357]

What point do you feel hasn't been responded to?

You are not "responding" at all. You simply parrot the same response. I explain why the verses, in their natural context are not saying what you are saying. I explain through exegesis and you simply copy and post the same response without actually responding to the substance of what I said. You don't actually prove that your exegesis is correct.

Also, note that no response has been proven to be an error, and that it's a good thing for Christians to continually present the same truths of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2, Philippians 3:1b), even when some people are unwilling to accept those truths (2 Timothy 4:3-4, Galatians 1:10).

You are simply in denial. I have examined the context of your passages and in most caes, I have demonstrated that they don't even say anything close to what you say they are saying. The errors in your premises are numerous. For example:

You are unable or unwilling to see the difference between the concepts of law and covenant. Those concepts are not interchangable. The Bible never treats them as interchangable. It is only your sloppy exegesis that makes you believe that they are. You clearly either do not read or do not understand the passages you are addressing.

You assume that Galatians is addressing the Old Covenant and/or the keeping of the Law, and that is NOT the subject matter.

You are saying that the Law of Moses was abolished, when it wasn't and the NT never makes that claim.

Those are just a few.

Also, imagine that one person posted "1+1=2", but a second person responded with "No, 1+1=3". Then the first person posted "Actually, 1+1=2", but the second person said "You obviously are too lazy to respond so I guess you think that reposting the same error counts as a refutation or response, but it doesn't". How should the first person respond to this?

But that analogy doesn't really reflect the reality. What is actually going on is that you are telling me what a passage means. I provide exegesis as to why I think your approach to that passage is wrong and what kind of understanding that proper exegesis demonstrates to be true. YOU respond with a copy and paste of your original statement, as if that counts as a repsonse.

You cannot demonstrate through exegesis that your approach is correct. Copying and pasting the same responses over and over is not a response. It is a lazy way of wasting bandwidth. All I end up doing is repeating myself because you are not competent and/or willing to actually respond with exegesis of your own.

Also, regarding calling people "lazy", or anything else that's negative, it should be pointed out that we can all get along just fine even though we may have some doctrinal disagreements, so long as we don't fall into ad hominem, that is, so long as we don't take the focus off of a discussion of doctrine and what the Bible says, and instead begin to make personal attacks (Titus 3:2, 2 Timothy 2:24-25, Matthew 5:22b).

I am not making personal attacks. I am making an accurate assessment of your responses on this thread. And it is lazy to simply copy and paste the same responses over and over and not actually respond to the substance of someone else's response. What I am looking for are responses that demonstrate the accurateness of your position through exegesis. Simply repeating yourself doesn't answer the exegetical issues I have raised. Anyone can post long strings of verses and make the Bible appear to say anything they want it to say. It takes skill to demonstrate through exegesis why your approach is correct. So far, you have demonstrated no aptitude in that area.

[Bible2]

shiloh357 said:

You are not "responding" at all. You simply parrot the same response. I explain why the verses, in their natural context are not saying what you are saying. I explain through exegesis and you simply copy and post the same response without actually responding to the substance of what I said. You don't actually prove that your exegesis is correct.

Note that it hasn't been proven that the verses, in their natural context, contradict anything that has been said. Also, note that the substance of every point has been responded to, and that the exegesis is proven to be correct by what the referenced scriptures themselves say.

shiloh357 said:

You are simply in denial. I have examined the context of your passages and in most caes, I have demonstrated that they don't even say anything close to what you say they are saying. The errors in your premises are numerous. For example:

You are unable or unwilling to see the difference between the concepts of law and covenant. Those concepts are not interchangable. The Bible never treats them as interchangable. It is only your sloppy exegesis that makes you believe that they are. You clearly either do not read or do not understand the passages you are addressing.

Note that the Bible itself doesn't distinguish between the letter of the Mosaic law and the Old Covenant, but shows that believers placing themselves under the letter of the Mosaic law is placing themselves under the Old Covenant (Galatians 4:21-5:8).

shiloh357 said:

You assume that Galatians is addressing the Old Covenant and/or the keeping of the Law, and that is NOT the subject matter.

Note that the subject matter of Galatians is the keeping of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 4:21-5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21).

shiloh357 said:

You are saying that the Law of Moses was abolished, when it wasn't and the NT never makes that claim.

Those are just a few.

Note that the NT does show that on the Cross, Jesus Christ abolished as a requirement, even for Jews, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Hebrews 7:18-19, Colossians 2:14-17, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).

shiloh357 said:

But that analogy doesn't really reflect the reality. What is actually going on is that you are telling me what a passage means. I provide exegesis as to why I think your approach to that passage is wrong and what kind of understanding that proper exegesis demonstrates to be true. YOU respond with a copy and paste of your original statement, as if that counts as a repsonse. You cannot demonstrate through exegesis that your approach is correct. Copying and pasting the same responses over and over is not a response. It is a lazy way of wasting bandwidth. All I end up doing is repeating myself because you are not competent and/or willing to actually respond with exegesis of your own.

Note that no approach to any passage has been proven wrong, and that it's a good thing for Christians to continually present the same truths of the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2, Philippians 3:1b), even when some people are unwilling to accept those truths (2 Timothy 4:3-4, Galatians 1:10).

shiloh357 said:

I am not making personal attacks. I am making an accurate assessment of your responses on this thread. And it is lazy to simply copy and paste the same responses over and over and not actually respond to the substance of someone else's response. What I am looking for are responses that demonstrate the accurateness of your position through exegesis. Simply repeating yourself doesn't answer the exegetical issues I have raised. Anyone can post long strings of verses and make the Bible appear to say anything they want it to say. It takes skill to demonstrate through exegesis why your approach is correct. So far, you have demonstrated no aptitude in that area.

Note that the substance of every point has been responded to, and that if the points remain the same, then the true response to those points will remain the same, just as, for example, the true response to "1+1=3" will remain "1+1=2".

Edited July 7, 2011 by Bible2

[Bible2]

KatyAnn said:

Thanks for starting this seperate thread. This is interesting reading, but it has turned into what I was careful to keep mine from becoming.

From my thread....

post #32

My concern is that this not turn into a discussion of...what is the church..what is Israel...this is replacement theory etc, etc, Usually those types of threads turn into massive arguments and are closed down.

This is not meant to be a discussion of WHO goes in a rapture. I started this thread because I am interested in what people believe the PURPOSE of the rapture is.

Perhaps this separate thread can give people a chance to bring in other subjects which get to the doctrinal roots of why they believe what they do regarding the purpose of the rapture.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Bible2

[~candice~]

Katy, to be fair, are you asking us to guess an answer, because the answer isn't given in scripture?

[~candice~]

Katy, to be fair, are you asking us to guess an answer, because the answer isn't given in scripture?

Candice, you did give an answer.

Your answer means we can't know because the purpose of a rature isn't given in scripture.

Yes, that's the best I can do. I don't think anyone knows why... unless I've missed that explanation in scripture. I would think it would be hard to defend an understanding of WHY using scripture. Just my .02.

[Guest shiloh357]

Note that it hasn't been proven that the verses, in their natural context, contradict anything that has been said.

Yes it has. That you refuse to acknowledge it, doesn't change anything.

Also, note that the substance of every point has been responded to, and that the exegesis is proven to be correct by what the referenced scriptures themselves say.

Wrong on both counts. Copying and pasting the same responses over and over does not count as exegesis. Anyone can take the lazy way out and just string verses together and make the Bible say whatever they want ,and that is what you are doing. You have not really responded except to parrot the identical previous statemets over and over. You can't actually refute my exegesis so you pretend to respond by copying and pasting the same words repeatedly. That you call that "exegesis" is laughable, which is why there is no reason to take your responses seriously. I could spend hours reexegeting the passages you keep repeating over and over, but i would end up just repeating myself.

Note that the substance of every point has been responded to, and that if the points remain the same, then the true response to those points will remain the same, just as, for example, the true response to "1+1=3" will remain "1+1=2".

Just like before. You have already made that erroneous analogy and this problem is not analagous to that at all. I am sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about and I am not going to waste my time any further on you, as you are not competent where debate and discussion are concerned. When you can resspond thoughtfully and not with your "polly wants a cracker" responses, intelligent conversation might be possible.

[Shiloh62]

The purpose of the rapture is for Jesus to gather all the believers up with him to go to heaven.

[nebula]

nebula said:

It is amazing how people can read the same Scriptures and see different things in the passage.

It days point blank in the quote in Acts that the charges were not true.

Note that Acts 21:24b doesn't require that the charges in Acts 21:21 were in fact not true,

"and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you"

I've looked this up in several versions. They all say the word "know."

Your interpretation would indicate they said to Paul, "all will think," or "all will believe."

"All will know," directly implies innocence to the charges, that the charges are false.

and that Paul's own written words prove that the charges were in fact true (Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21-5:4, Galatians 3:10,24-25, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14-17).

No they don't. Paul is advocating faith in Messiah Yeshua over the works of the Torah. He never told the Jews to cease practicing Torah.

Read this:

18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised ? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision ? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. (1 Cor. 7)

The "circumcised" is what the NT calls the Jews on several several occasions. (Acts 11:2, Romans 3:30, Romans 4:9, Galatians 2:7-9)

All Acts 21:24b says is that if Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, the charges in Acts 21:21 would be negated in the eyes of Jews who (mistakenly) thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Paul didn't mind agreeing to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, because of his principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and also because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy, for the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul wasn't sinning by participating in them.

Is deliberate deception is OK in your theology?

And why would Paul preach to the Jews in the Gentile nations to depart from Torah only to put on a Torah facade in Jerusalem? If so, he would be doing the very thing he rebuked Peter for doing in Galatians.