Is the Rapture Biblical?

[S.T. Ranger]

As mentioned in the previous post, all you have to do is show how the First Century teaching of the Rapture is not what Paul taught. What is the mystery?

 

I guess we can, along with a-millennial teaching, confirm doctrines and practices such as infant baptism, indulgences, and teachings such as came forth from men like Montanus because after all...we have an early record outside of Scripture to show that these were taught and embraced.

 

Right?

 

The Rapture can only be proved or disproved from Scripture, not commentary concerning teachers found in Church History.

 

So proceed with teaching about Paul's teaching, and show that he was not teaching The Rapture as it is understood by most.

 

 

God bless.

[Salty]

As mentioned in the previous post, all you have to do is show how the First Century teaching of the Rapture is not what Paul taught. What is the mystery?

 

I guess we can, along with a-millennial teaching, confirm doctrines and practices such as infant baptism, indulgences, and teachings such as came forth from men like Montanus because after all...we have an early record outside of Scripture to show that these were taught and embraced.

 

Right?

 

The Rapture can only be proved or disproved from Scripture, not commentary concerning teachers found in Church History.

 

So proceed with teaching about Paul's teaching, and show that he was not teaching The Rapture as it is understood by most.

 

 

God bless.

 

Are you trying to infer that you are not... familiar with the difference between the sole word 'rapture' compared with the phrase 'pre-trib rapture' from a theory by John Nelson Darby in 1830's Britain? On another thread you show support only of a Pre-trib Rapture. Are you trying to hide that here on this thread?? Discussion of the Biblical harpazo ("caught up") event is not... the same thing as discussing the Pre-tribulational Rapture theory from 1830's Great Britain.

 

To believe in the resurrection on the day of Jesus' coming as written is to automatically accept the harpazo idea as per Scripture (rapture is the Latinized version of Greek harpazo).

 

But, to believe in a Pre-tribulational Rapture is a much different thing, an idea that was NEVER taught by Apostle Paul, nor the early Christian Church.

 

The main differences with the so-called Pre-trib Rapture is it supposes the timing of the harpazo ("caught up") event when Jesus comes to be PRIOR to the "great tribulation" event Jesus warned His disciples (and us) about. And by that secondly, it wrongly supposes we will be gathered to Christ off the earth while others are left behind to suffer the tribulation, like we suddenly disappear off the earth. Yet Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever taught any such idea. In Matt.24 and Mark 13 Jesus showed His coming and gathering of the saints to be AFTER the great tribulation He mentioned, not prior to it.

 

In 1 Thess.4, Paul covers the harpazo along with the resurrection, with Christ bringing the 'asleep' saints with Him, and then gathering His saints still alive on earth, but to where??? To Jerusalem, on earth, as written in Acts 1 and Zechariah 14. Thus the "caught up" event is not about being raptured to Heaven to live up in the clouds; it is about being changed to the spiritual resurrection type body and gathered to Christ Jesus on His way to Jerusalem on earth.

 

Jerusalem, on earth, is where the holy city will be established at His return, where He and His elect will reign over the nations from, and is the "camp of the saints" of Rev.20. At that time is when the Millennial temple of the Book of Ezekiel will be established there in Jerusalem on earth, along with God's River flowing out from it, and the tree of life on either side of the River.

 

That is when, per Revelation 22:14-15, His elect will have right to the tree of life inside the gates of the holy city, while the wicked will dwell outside the gates. That is where the "mansions" Christ promised for His priests will be, for those simply mean 'abodes', and those areas are given in the Ezekiel temple layout.

[S.T. Ranger]

As mentioned in the previous post, all you have to do is show how the First Century teaching of the Rapture is not what Paul taught. What is the mystery?

 

I guess we can, along with a-millennial teaching, confirm doctrines and practices such as infant baptism, indulgences, and teachings such as came forth from men like Montanus because after all...we have an early record outside of Scripture to show that these were taught and embraced.

 

Right?

 

The Rapture can only be proved or disproved from Scripture, not commentary concerning teachers found in Church History.

 

So proceed with teaching about Paul's teaching, and show that he was not teaching The Rapture as it is understood by most.

 

 

God bless.

 

Are you trying to infer that you are not... familiar with the difference between the sole word 'rapture' compared with the phrase 'pre-trib rapture' from a theory by John Nelson Darby in 1830's Britain?

No, actually it is you inferring that, lol.

Not sure how you could possibly conclude that I am not aware of the false argument that the Pre-tribulation Rapture was not taught until Darby invented it. Was that not the point of my post?

On another thread you show support only of a Pre-trib Rapture.

In every thread I show that I support only a Pre-Trib view, and go to the effort of addressing the simplistic errors that lead people to the error of a mid, post, or a-mil view, and this by supporting the views I have with Scripture.

Are you trying to hide that here on this thread??

How you arrived at this is beyond me. Perhaps you could point out what it is I said that might have made you doubt my consistent defense of the Pre-Trib Rapture?

Discussion of the Biblical harpazo ("caught up") event is not... the same thing as discussing the Pre-tribulational Rapture theory from 1830's Great Britain.

This I agree with, because those that recognize the teaching of the Rapture by Paul, in the First Century...have different views as to the timing. These are primarily pre, mid, and post. And most familiar with the discussion do not question whether there is a Rapture, and they certainly do not all embrace the Darby Argument.

It is usually only those that are post who do so.

To believe in the resurrection on the day of Jesus' coming as written is to automatically accept the harpazo idea as per Scripture

No, that is incorrect. To believe in the resurrection on the day of the Lord's Return is to Scripturally in error. Let's keep that straight. To believe that the Rapture is occurs at the Lord's Return is not only error, but denies what Scripture actually teaches will happen when He returns.

There is only one resurrection mentioned in regards to the events surrounding the Lord's Return, and that is the First Resurrection, which involves only the Tribulation Martyrs. That is Biblical fact.

Imposing the Rapture into His Return simply does not make sense. The proof-texting done to arrive at that conclusion seems convincing from a topical glance, but when we examine all the relevant texts the only tenable position is that the Rapture has to take place before the Tribulation begins.

(rapture is the Latinized version of Greek harpazo).

That too is incorrect: "rapture" is actually an English word derived from the Latin derived from Middle French, which in turn comes from medieval Latin, which is then traced to the Latin Raptus, though I have heard there is a variant rapturos.

But, to believe in a Pre-tribulational Rapture is a much different thing,

I agree, because if you make the mistake of failing to identify and distinguish the difference between the Second Coming and the Rapture, you will surely look very foolish when you try to defend that position.

an idea that was NEVER taught by Apostle Paul,

I agree. We arrive at the timing of the event with simple deductive reasoning. Remove anything that is impossible and you will arrive, most likely, at the truth.

Now what is impossible is that the rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation at Christ's return, because for starters...this leaves only three possibilities for who populates the Kingdom: no-one (which we know is impossible); unbelievers (which we know is impossible); glorified saints alone (which we know is impossible).

Progressive Dispensational Theology has tried to evade this dilemma by making the Tribulation exclusive to the Middle East. The problem with that is, Scripture does not support that view. Anyone that would like to challenge my critique of that is welcome to do so.

nor the early Christian Church.

Try this on for size:

(Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD)) On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”

I will have to appeal to Fair use because when I tried to insert the link it would not let me exit, so that is not an option until perhaps I can speak with the Moderators to find out how to do this without locking it up.

By the way, you can search early references to the Rapture and educate yourself on why the Darby Argument is a pathetic cop-out. You owe it to yourself to do this, not to mention to your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would also recommend you look up chiliasm. Name sound funny? That's because that is what millennialism used to be called in the early Church, back when Latin was a primary language. IT can be traced back to the original Greek in the relevant texts as well as be seen as continuing in Latin. Think about that, my friend.

But just like we don't go around talking about "the harpazo," neither do we go around speaking about chiliasm.

The main differences with the so-called Pre-trib Rapture is it supposes the timing of the harpazo ("caught up") event when Jesus comes to be PRIOR to the "great tribulation" event Jesus warned His disciples (and us) about.

That's like saying that the Global Flood "supposes the whole world was immersed," lol.

It doesn't suppose it, that's why it is called a pre-trib rapture, because we know the Lord Returns at the end of the Tribulation.

And by that secondly, it wrongly supposes we will be gathered to Christ off the earth while others are left behind to suffer the tribulation,

Sorry, no, the text is clear:

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 King James Version (KJV)

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

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

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:

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.

Not sure how caught up in the clouds and in the air leaves you with the impression that the saints are not caught up into the clouds and in the air.

Perhaps you could explain that for me.

Continued...

[S.T. Ranger]

like we suddenly disappear off the earth.

No disappearing mentioned. Off the earth...that is clearly in the text.

Yet Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever taught any such idea.

Sure they did. Look at Paul's statement above and look at the Lord's statement here:

Revelation 3:10 King James Version (KJV)

10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

In Matt.24 and Mark 13 Jesus showed His coming and gathering of the saints to be AFTER the great tribulation He mentioned, not prior to it.

No-one is denying that. What is denied is making the Rapture and the Second Coming the same events.

They are clearly not.

When the Lord Returns those that are separated to HIs right hand are not said to be resurrected. They are not said to be gathered by Christ, but by Angels.

In 1 Thess.4, Paul covers the harpazo along with the resurrection,

Agreed. The two cannot be separated.

with Christ bringing the 'asleep' saints with Him,

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14King James Version (KJV)

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

And how can the Lord bring them with Him if they are not already with Him? Think about that, Salty. In vv.13-14 the reference is to the Return after the Tribulation: But what He states next...

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

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

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:

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.

...explains how He will be able to bring them with Him.

Thus Paul comforts their fears.

And again, every description of Christ's return do not mention resurrection of those living on the earth. The only reference to resurrection at this time is the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

And by the way, "First" does not refer to a sequential meaning, but it is a reference to the first of two resurrections the Lord taught:

John 5:29 King James Version (KJV)

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There are only two resurrections available to men. The resurrection in Revelation 20 is called the first resurrection because it is a resurrection unto life.

and then gathering His saints still alive on earth,

Sorry, but the resurrection of the dead in Christ takes place at the same time the resurrection of the living saints occurs. You are making two events of the Rapture and one event of what you should be distinguishing.

but to where???

It's right there...

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

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

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:

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.

Continued...

[S.T. Ranger]

To Jerusalem, on earth, as written in Acts 1 and Zechariah 14.

Sorry, no. The Rapture has us caught up, yes...off the earth, into the clouds, into the air. To deny that is to deny what the text plainly states.

And there is nothing, as I already mentioned in the other thread, in either of these verses which refer to the Rapture. Nor, I would point out at this time, is there a mention of the Church being gathered to Jerusalem. They simply state where the Lord will return to the earth at.

Thus the "caught up" event is not about being raptured to Heaven to live up in the clouds;

So you do want to deny Paul's teaching then.

That is a result of buying into the Darby Argument.

it is about being changed to the spiritual resurrection type body and gathered to Christ Jesus on His way to Jerusalem on earth.

Not at Christ's return, no, it isn't.

Jerusalem, on earth, is where the holy city will be established at His return,

Agree with this part of the statement.

where He and His elect will reign over the nations from,

This is a conclusion many have come to, but I ask you to supply the Scriptural Support for it.

and is the "camp of the saints" of Rev.20.

Again...no.

Revelation 20:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

This is the camp of the saints living in the Tribulation. Unless you want to place the enemies of God, who are destroyed here...in the Holy City during the Kingdom.

You don't really want to do that, do you? lol

At that time is when the Millennial temple of the Book of Ezekiel will be established there in Jerusalem on earth,

Agree with this as well. Notice in Ezekiel 39 that we see a description of the Supper of the Great God, called His sacrifice, and then in ch.40 we see the Temple described. A testimony to the harmony of the Prophecy of the Word of God. Same sequence there that we see in Revelation.

along with God's River flowing out from it, and the tree of life on either side of the River.

Sorry, no. There will be a thousand year period before the Eternal State, where this takes place. If you note here...

Revelation 20:11 King James Version (KJV)

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Revelation 21 King James Version (KJV)

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

...you will see the heavens and the earth in which the Millennial Temple will reside has passed away before we see the description found in Revelation 22.

That is when, per Revelation 22:14-15, His elect will have right to the tree of life inside the gates of the holy city,

This is the Eternal State, the new heavens and earth...not the Millennial Kingdom.

while the wicked will dwell outside the gates.

Those "without" are most likely those that will never, as mentioned in several passages...enter into life. This establishes a contradictory doctrine to the basic principle that not only will nothing that offends enter into the Millennial Kingdom, we can be certain that nothing, that offends will enter the Eternal State.

I will suggest a possible understanding of this, though, though it is designated as speculation and nothing else: it may be that those who commit the sins mentioned after salvation may lose privilege in the Eternal State, and entrance into the Holy City being denied is a reasonable suggestion. That they do not have access to the Tree of Life does not mean either they need it or that any believer in the Eternal State will need it, because we have eternal life through our union with God Himself. He is the source of Eternal Life, not the, or a...tree of life.

That is where the "mansions" Christ promised for His priests will be,

While I agree that like Israel, the Church and the eventual collective people of God are a kingdom of priests, what I will say is that these dwelling places will not be found in the Millennial Kingdom.

for those simply mean 'abodes',

Fair enough.

and those areas are given in the Ezekiel temple layout.

If you want to correlate what Ezekiel writes about to the new heavens and earth, I would be glad to see the Scripture.

God bless.

[Salty]

 

No, actually it is you inferring that, lol.

Not sure how you could possibly conclude that I am not aware of the false argument that the Pre-tribulation Rapture was not taught until Darby invented it. Was that not the point of my post?

 

 

Salty:  boy, what a twist of words you have. There is NO documented evidence that any Church prior to the 1800's taught a 'pre-trib rapture'. Your initial statement of basis is a falsehood.

 

In every thread I show that I support only a Pre-Trib view, and go to the effort of addressing the simplistic errors that lead people to the error of a mid, post, or a-mil view, and this by supporting the views I have with Scripture.

Are you trying to hide that here on this thread??

How you arrived at this is beyond me. Perhaps you could point out what it is I said that might have made you doubt my consistent defense of the Pre-Trib Rapture?

Salty:  it's because in your beginning post of #150, you only use the term 'rapture', and not the pre-trib idea along with it.

 

 

 

To believe in the resurrection on the day of Jesus' coming as written is to automatically accept the harpazo idea as per Scripture

No, that is incorrect. To believe in the resurrection on the day of the Lord's Return is to Scripturally in error. Let's keep that straight. To believe that the Rapture is occurs at the Lord's Return is not only error, but denies what Scripture actually teaches will happen when He returns.

 

Salty: uh, what? The "day of the Lord" is... when Jesus returns and the harpazo event occurs according to Scripture.

 

The 1 Thess.5, 2 Pet.3:10, Zech.14, and Rev.16:15 Scripture all point to Christ's coming and the gathering on... the "day of the Lord". 1 Thess.4 is where Paul only gave events of the harpazo, but in the next 1 Thess.5 chapter he gave its timing with the "day of the Lord".

 

What the Pre-trib theorists try to do is to move... the so-called rapture event up in time prior to not only the "day of the Lord" timing, but also prior to the "great tribulation" Jesus warned us about. No such pre-trib rapture idea can be proven in God's Holy Writ, which is WHY... you keep going on assuming you know what you're talking about minus presenting Bible evidence to prove it.

 

 

There is only one resurrection mentioned in regards to the events surrounding the Lord's Return, and that is the First Resurrection, which involves only the Tribulation Martyrs. That is Biblical fact.

 

Salty:  only saying something is a Biblical fact does not make it so.

 

In 1 Cor.15 and 1 Thess.4 Apostle Paul clearly taught the resurrection on the day of Christ's coming. In 1 Thess.5 he taught the timing of that occuring on the "day of the Lord".

 

Rev.16

¹⁵ Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

¹⁶ And He gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

¹⁷ And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

 

 

Jesus said that within the 6th Vial timing as a warning to His Church on earth. When He said, "Behold, I come as a thief", He directly... linked the day of His second coming with what Apostles Paul and Peter taught about the "day of the Lord" events, as per 1 Thess.5 and 2 Pet.3:10.

 

That means, at that timing on 6th Vial, He still will not have come to harpazo His Church on earth yet. It also means the resurrection has yet to occur on that 6th Vial.

 

Moreover, one of the main points of the day of Christ's coming to gather His Church is the end of this present world, with the end of Antichrist's reign, and Christ's triumph over the wicked, and begininng His thousand years reign over the nations. Trying to insert some metaphorical distance between the harpazo event and the "day of the Lord" is a false argument only conceived to make the false pre-trib rapture theory sound more logical.

Imposing the Rapture into His Return simply does not make sense. The proof-texting done to arrive at that conclusion seems convincing from a topical glance, but when we examine all the relevant texts the only tenable position is that the Rapture has to take place before the Tribulation begins.

Salty: imposing a pre-trib rapture into Scripture when there is no such written evidence is what does not make sense.

 

Jesus said in Matt.24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 that the saints are gathered AFTER the tribulation He taught about there. One example is about the gathering in the heavenly of the 'asleep' saints, and the other is about the gathering (harpazo) of saints still alive on earth. There is that difference between those two Olivet Discourse examples, and it's a very slight difference, but it is there. This reveals He was speaking of the SAME subject of the gathering of His Church that Paul was in 1 Thess.4 & 5.

 

 

Thusly, what you have shown is that you are not abiding by the written Scripture, nor do you intend to, which is also why you've yet to show Scripture evidence to back up your idea.

 

[S.T. Ranger]

Be back in a bit.

Edited December 23, 2014 by S.T. Ranger

[Salty]

 

No, that is incorrect. To believe in the resurrection on the day of the Lord's Return is to Scripturally in error. Let's keep that straight. To believe that the Rapture is occurs at the Lord's Return is not only error, but denies what Scripture actually teaches will happen when He returns.

There is only one resurrection mentioned in regards to the events surrounding the Lord's Return, and that is the First Resurrection, which involves only the Tribulation Martyrs. That is Biblical fact.

Imposing the Rapture into His Return simply does not make sense. The proof-texting done to arrive at that conclusion seems convincing from a topical glance, but when we examine all the relevant texts the only tenable position is that the Rapture has to take place before the Tribulation begins.

 

 

Salty:  imposing a pre-trib rapture into the Scripture is what does not make sense.

 

In Matt.24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27, Jesus revealed the gathering of His saints on earth for AFTER the tribulation He warned us about, and those two examples link directly to the two groups of saints that Paul taught in 1 Thess.4 with the harpazo event. There's a slight difference between the two Matt.24 and Mark 13 examples, but it is there as to where each group is gathered from.

 

Moreover, Paul actually gave the timing of the 1 Thess.4 harpazo event in the next 1 Thess.5 chapter when he used the metaphor of the "day of the Lord" coming "as a thief in the night". In Rev.16:15 our Lord Jesus within the 6th Vial timing says, "Behold, I come as a thief", directly linking that timing with Paul's "thief in the night" of 1 Thess.5. Apostle Peter did similar with 2 Pet.3:10 about the elements burned up on the "day of the Lord" timed with that "as a thief".

 

 

I agree. We arrive at the timing of the event with simple deductive reasoning. Remove anything that is impossible and you will arrive, most likely, at the truth.

Now what is impossible is that the rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation at Christ's return, because for starters...this leaves only three possibilities for who populates the Kingdom: no-one (which we know is impossible); unbelievers (which we know is impossible); glorified saints alone (which we know is impossible).

Progressive Dispensational Theology has tried to evade this dilemma by making the Tribulation exclusive to the Middle East. The problem with that is, Scripture does not support that view. Anyone that would like to challenge my critique of that is welcome to do so.

Salty:  Darby's Dispensationalism includes the separation idea between Christ's Church and Israel in order further the pre-trib rapture idea. Such an idea has nothing to do with what Scripture declares about Christ's Church ruling on earth over the nations during His thousand years reign (Rev.5).

 

Try this on for size:

(Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD)) On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”

 

Salty: I also implore revisionism, which is what some of the pre-trib scholars have been trying to do with early Church writings like that. What Irenaeus shows with his last statement there is about Christ's Church as those "righteous" "when they overcome" by going through the tribulation, the final contest prior to Christ gathering His Church. So in reality, he said just the opposite of what you say.

By the way, you can search early references to the Rapture and educate yourself on why the Darby Argument is a pathetic cop-out. You owe it to yourself to do this, not to mention to your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would also recommend you look up chiliasm. Name sound funny? That's because that is what millennialism used to be called in the early Church, back when Latin was a primary language. IT can be traced back to the original Greek in the relevant texts as well as be seen as continuing in Latin. Think about that, my friend.

 

Salty: I've done enough study of the pre-trib doctrine's origins. Never was a Church doctrine of any Christian Church prior to the 1800's, even documentation from pre-trib scholars have admitted (documentation by Dave MacPhearson on that).

 

 

And by that secondly, it wrongly supposes we will be gathered to Christ off the earth while others are left behind to suffer the tribulation,

Sorry, no, the text is clear:

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 King James Version (KJV)

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

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

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:

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.

Not sure how caught up in the clouds and in the air leaves you with the impression that the saints are not caught up into the clouds and in the air.

Perhaps you could explain that for me.

Salty:  you would need thorough study also in the Old Testament prophets to understand what I'm given about that. But you really don't have to go too far, can study Paul's usage of that harpazo in other examples, like 2 Cor.12.

 

That "caught up" of 1 Thess.4 is simple those still alive on earth on the day of Jesus returning to this earth, casting off their flesh body with their "spiritual body" being revealed, which by the way is OF... that other dimension called the heavenly, so it is not limited with time/space issues like our flesh bodies are. Just as the example of Philip being transported (which uses 'harpazo') and suddenly finding himself in another land at an instant, that is how quickly Jesus will gather the alive saints to join with the 'asleep' saints He brings... with... Him. Then both groups with Jesus go immediately to Jerusalem where He and they begin the Millennium reign of Rev.20 over the nations.

 

In other words, being "caught up" in the 'air' (also means 'breath' in the Greek) is about that change to the spiritual body in 1 Cor.15 Paul was preaching. And... it is about the end of this flesh world for all... peoples, the heavenly literally revealed here on earth. It certainly does NOT mean Christ coming down out of Heaven half-way to gather His Church and only to go back up into Heaven with them to reign from Heaven for the thousand years of Rev.20. Rev.5:10 is very plain that His elect kings and priests reign ON THE EARTH.

 

 

 

[Salty]

 

like we suddenly disappear off the earth.

No disappearing mentioned. Off the earth...that is clearly in the text.

 

Salty:  but I say, you really don't realize what that harpazo event means, simple you're wanting to keep it on a simple fleshy term. Atmospheric clouds are one thing, but the Heavenly dimension is completely another. This is why that event will be a surprise for everyone... alive on earth, including the wicked. Thus the idea of a 'secret' gathering like a sudden disappearing is Darby's idea from his personal interpretation of the harpazo event. In actuality per God's Word, that event will be the farthest thing from a secret, for the wicked are going to 'see' Christ coming in the clouds in glory also (Rev.1). And yes, the day of Christ's coming is... the day of the 1 Thess.4 harpazo event on... the "day of the Lord".

 

 

Yet Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever taught any such idea.

Sure they did. Look at Paul's statement above and look at the Lord's statement here:

Revelation 3:10 King James Version (KJV)

10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

 

Salty:  there is no mention of the harpazo event in that Scripture. Christ keeping those from the hour of temptation is not the word tribulation.

 

Thusly, if one is kept from temptation it means... what? It means they cannot... be tempted, not some physical escape act. The idea of physical escape has... to be added to get the pre-trib school's take on that. Jesus is speaking to His elect of the Church of Philadelphia there, those that had the "key of David" that no man could shut or open from them. That's what the real context of His Message to that group is about, that He had prepared them to stand and not be tempted, not physical escape. It aligns with His warning in His Olivet Discourse that the coming pseudo-Christ, if possible, would deceive His own very elect. Their being kept from that temptation simply means they cannot be deceived by the coming Antichrist during the tribulation.

 

 

In Matt.24 and Mark 13 Jesus showed His coming and gathering of the saints to be AFTER the great tribulation He mentioned, not prior to it.

No-one is denying that. What is denied is making the Rapture and the Second Coming the same events.

They are clearly not.

 

Salty:  then you're reading a completely different Bible than mine, because that Scripture is very, very, very clear about the day of Christ's coming along with the gathering of His saints:

 

Matt.24

²⁷ For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

²⁸ For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

²⁹ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

³⁰ And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

³¹ And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

So just what were you saying about that Scripture again?

When the Lord Returns those that are separated to HIs right hand are not said to be resurrected. They are not said to be gathered by Christ, but by Angels.

 

Salty:  so, now you want to limit Christ's authority over His angels in the harpazo event, just to keep your pre-trib tradition from men??

 

In 1 Thess.4, Paul covers the harpazo along with the resurrection,

Agreed. The two cannot be separated.

 

As I also have said before.

 

with Christ bringing the 'asleep' saints with Him,

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14King James Version (KJV)

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

And how can the Lord bring them with Him if they are not already with Him? Think about that, Salty. In vv.13-14 the reference is to the Return after the Tribulation: But what He states next...

 

Salty:  kick out your fleshy mind first, then look at that 1 Thess.4 event with spiritual eyes. There's only 2 different dimensions of existence in God's Word, one is this earthly one we live in, and the other is the heavenly where The Father and The Son and all angels are, including Satan's pit. Doesn't matter about exact location, like hell being inside the earth somewhere, etc., nor a stepped view, or a lateral view of separation. All not in the flesh are there in that same heavenly dimension.

 

Likewise, the 'asleep' saints are in that heavenly dimension, their spirits are (Eccl.12:5-7 again, remember?). Even with Jesus' Luke 16 example of Paradise and the great fixed gulf between two sides, all that is in the heavenly dimension right now.

 

When Jesus comes like Paul said in 1 Thess.4, He will bring those 'asleep' saints back to earth with Him. They are already in that heavenly dimension where He will be coming from, which is how... He brings them with Him when He comes. The resurrection of the dead happens first, also like Paul said there.

 

1 Thess.4

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

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:

 

 

Salty:  the meaning in the Greek of that KJV word "prevent" actually means 'to precede'. Paul is merely saying that we still alive on earth in no way will 'precede' the asleep saints that have already died. It's simple logic, because once they died, they were already there, their spirit having returned to God (again, Eccl.12:5-7; 2 Cor.5). (The spirit idea in Eccl.12:5-7 is not just about some animal magnetism concept some try to claim. Per our Lord Jesus when He proclaimed to not fear those who can our body but not our soul, that gave us more info about that Eccl.12:5-7 spirit including our soul, and not just animating spirit from God like drops of water going back into an ocean with all identity of the person lost.)

 

And again, every description of Christ's return do not mention resurrection of those living on the earth. The only reference to resurrection at this time is the First Resurrection of Revelation 20.

And by the way, "First" does not refer to a sequential meaning, but it is a reference to the first of two resurrections the Lord taught:

 

Salty:  your thinking is fleshy on that too. The idea of resurrection on the last day of this world simply means putting on 1 condition per 1 Cor.15. One's flesh body of incorruption must put on incorruption (spiritual body Paul taught). There's 2 condition changes Paul showed there though. Putting on the spiritual body is for all, the "resurrection of damnation" also per John 5:28-29, and Isaiah 25. The wicked dead are raised then too, and the wicked alive will be changed also on that day.

 

 

 

John 5:29 King James Version (KJV)

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There are only two resurrections available to men. The resurrection in Revelation 20 is called the first resurrection because it is a resurrection unto life.

Salty:  with mention of the ordinal "first" in "first resurrection", at least one more after that is automatically implied. The question of a second resurrection should then be, what TYPE is the implied second resurrection? I say, it is one LIKE the "first resurrection".

 

In other words, the resurrection is about two different TYPES on the day of Christ's coming, both the "resurrection of life", and the "resurrection of damnation". Both will occur on that day.

 

All those not... of the "first resurrection" will be in that "resurrection of damnation", which means those in a state of condemnation throughout Christ's thousand years reign, their still being subject to the "second death" after the thousand years is over. All those will stand in judgment during Christ's thousand years reign with His elect kings and priests. Sadly, it will include even believers on Christ that will fall away to the coming Antichrist.

 

The Rev.22:14-15 events are... for the time of Rev.20 with the thousand years timing. Just because that is given in that latter Rev.22 chapter does not mean we no longer have to rightly divide God's Word according to its timelines. The wicked outside the holy city on earth are those nations which Jesus and His elect will reign over during the thousand years. At the end of that period Satan is loosed one final time, and they are tempted. Then comes the Millennial end and the great day of God's Judgment upon them.

 

 

 

and then gathering His saints still alive on earth,

Sorry, but the resurrection of the dead in Christ takes place at the same time the resurrection of the living saints occurs. You are making two events of the Rapture and one event of what you should be distinguishing.

 

Salty:  if you don't understand how the alseep saints Jesus brings with Him WHEN He comes to gather His saints still alive on earth per 1 Thess.4, then maybe you ought to read it again without... the pre-trib wishing-well blinders on.

 

but to where???

It's right there...

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

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

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:

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.

Salty:  well, actually it is not all... there. That might be where the pre-trib school would like to stop as to their destination, but that's not the final destination God's Word declares. The Ezekiel 40 thru 47 are all Millennial time chapters, and Christ and His saints are shown there, in the holy land, and called there the "Zadok" (means 'The Righteous'). That is where... the Millennial service with our Lord Jesus is shown to take place, just as Rev.20 also declares it with the idea of the "camp of the saints" being on earth where Satan leads his host upon it to try and destroy it.

 

 

[S.T. Ranger]

Hello inchrist, just a few questions before I get into responding to your post:

1) do you believe there is a Rapture taught in Scripture, or are you amillennial?

2) will you agree to respond to my posts in detail, answering every point, rather than cherry-picking? You do not directly quote me (or if you do, it's not apparent in your post), but rather choose to lecture me on your views, which, while I do not mind, I will ask that you be detailed in response so as to avoid having to travel the same ground twice.

3) lastly, this isn't Mitchell, is it? I doubt it, based on what is said here, but just want to make sure it isn't. If not, disregard this last question, lol.

And I apologize for taking so long to get to this, but wasn't aware there was a response to me. When you quote using the code from the quote itself, it will alert the poster that someone has responded to one of their posts.

Also, I will break this up into smaller posts to make responding easier.

S.T.Ranger

The mere idea of two separate and distinct comings might not be harmful in itself. However, when we examine many of the reasons given for why there should be separate resurrections at two separate comings of our Lord, then I believe the harm becomes more apparent. And the teaching that the uncircumcision resurrection, under Paul’s administration, is far superior to that of Israel’s is not substantiated by Scripture. Peter and Israel are then relegated to an inferior calling, expectation, etc. The Scriptures do not teach such a theory.

Much of what you argue against in this post begins with a false premise which makes it easier for you to bring about a desirous conclusion. In detailed response, we can clarify who believes what and much of the irrelevant discussion you provide here can be dispensed with...and we can actually debate the Rapture of the Church.

First, the Rapture is not a Second Coming, it is the Lord resurrecting the Body of Christ, at which time we join Him in the air. While this could be construed as taking place at the time of the Second Coming, the primary problem you will have, unless you are a-millennial and spiritualize the thousand year reign of Christ in this existing universe, is that if the Rapture takes place upon His Return...this leaves no-one to populate the Kingdom whereby Old Testament prophecies do not have to be discarded to suit the view.

Secondly, the false argument that is presented by both a-millennials as well Post-Tribulation rapturists (the Mid-Tribbers get a pass on this for the most part) that a Pre-Tribulation Rapture is "harmful" is simply ludicrous. We view the Lord's Return as imminent even as Paul did, thus try to live according to that.

Third: you presume to have the correct view before there has been any discussion at all.

Fourth...

And the teaching that the uncircumcision resurrection, under Paul’s administration, is far superior to that of Israel’s is not substantiated by Scripture.

...not sure who exactly you're debating, but I have not suggested anything that even alludes to this, thus showing this to be a false argument. This illustrates, my friend, why it is not a good idea to assume. The Body of Christ is made up of both Jew and Gentile, and few fail to understand that. When the Church is Raptured, it will not be selective, but it will be every born again believer in the Body whether alive or dead. Both are resurrected at this time, which again speaks about the weakness and futility of trying to impose the Rapture...at the end of the Tribulation.

Lastly...

Peter and Israel are then relegated to an inferior calling, expectation, etc. The Scriptures do not teach such a theory.

...again another false argument that I, and unlikely anyone...has suggested.

If the events described in one account are different from the events described in another account, does that necessarily prove that we are being presented with two totally different occurrences which will happen at two different times?

Not at all, and I wish you had not wasted your time giving the following examples.

How we distinguish the difference between the Rapture of the Church and other resurrections that take place is through the very context of the passages that the references are found in. For example, no-one, well almost no-one (let the reader understand (personal joke)), would confuse the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs with the resurrection of the dead one thousand years later. So before creating arguments you can answer, it might be better to look at the details of another's views.

One account might leave out a piece of information, while another account might add a piece of information, yet they do not contradict.

For example:

Concerning Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, we read in Acts 9 :7, "Now the men who are journeying with him stood dumbfounded, hearing, indeed, the sound, yet beholding no one."

But we read in Acts 22:9,

"Now those who are with me gaze, indeed, at the light, yet they hear not the voice of Him Who is speaking to me."

In the first account Paul’s companions: Hear but don’tSee

In the second account Paul's companions: See but don’t Hear

If we adopt the same logic used by rapturists, that things that differ in details must be different events, then we must conclude that Saul [Paul] was converted twice two different trips to Damascus!

I would suggest that they do not conflict: They did not see the Lord nor hear what He said in either version. That they saw the light and heard a sound does not equate to seeing the Lord and hearing the express statements of the Lord as Paul did.

So not a good example.

Another example

There are many more differences in the accounts of our Lord’s crucifixion than there are differences in the accounts of His second coming. Why then does no one believe or teach that there were two or more crucifixions of our Lord, yet millions believe He will return a second time, TWICE?

I see no difference in that example. However, non-reference is not conclusive, in that we agree.

But we do not agree that there are "many more differences in the accounts of our Lord's crucifixion," and by the way, don't bother to educate me on how the Word of God conflicts, let's stick to the topic.

And again, your premise is false, because I, as one pre-tribber, do not teach that the Rapture is a Coming at all. And the reason why millions believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture has two reasons: first, they believe this because they have adopted the views of others rather than studying the issue for themselves (which can be said of any doctrine), or, for the same reason that millions believe that Scripture teaches eternal security of the believer...because that is what the Scripture teaches.

And the is the point of a debate like this, to test our beliefs and determine if God has revealed truth to us, or whether our beliefs are simply parroted responses of adopted views that agree with what we want to believe.

Considering that Paul speaks of a secret or "mystery"

Let’s be sure we are clear on our phrases. "Mystery" can easily be understood to mean new information, or more information. It does not denote a new event.

I will assume you are referring to my mention of this.

Mystery, as defined by Scripture...

Romans 16:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1 Corinthians 2:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

...is not itself a...mystery. It is a previously unrevealed truth which is at a certain point in time...revealed. The Gospel of Christ was a mystery as well, so we would expect that when Paul speaks about a mystery, there is some consistency to his teaching. It is not a matter of "Well, that's a different kind of mystery," lol.

And while I would agree it does not suggest "new," what we can be sure of is that it was not...revealed.

And that is where we distinguish between Paul's teaching specifically about the Rapture and the resurrection body which we will be raised in, and the many various verses and passages you have strung together to make your point.

Let’s be sure we are clear on our phrases.

Let's also be sure we are clear about word meaning, and the best way to define them.

There is absolutely nothing in the meaning of the word "secret" that denotes a new and different event.

Falsely created argument, no-one said it was.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was a mystery which was not revealed until Pentecost. Yet it was spoken of in prophecy as well as directly spoken of by Christ. But I challenge you to find one person in the Gospels or prior to Acts 2 that actually had understanding of this mystery. You can look, but you will not find one person. But if you would like to try, that has relevance to understanding a Biblical view of Resurrection, particularly the Resurrection of those who are born again, whether alive or dead.

Continued...