Peter on the Last Days - Part Two

[ENOCH2010]

Very well done Omegaman!!!   By the sound of bopeep's last post, her eyes are starting to open, she just don't want to admit it yet.

[Ezra]

 

Now, I once saw an attemp made, to say that Jesus does remain in Heaven, as long as He is in the air and His feet have not yet touched the ground. That to me, was the most embarrassing attemp to defend a position, that I think I have ever seen from a Christian.

Why is it "embarrasing"? If the Lord comes to meet His Church IN THE AIR and returns back to Heaven immediately, then for all practical purposes He has not come to earth at His Second Coming.  If this is "IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE" it means in nanoseconds.  So what's your problem, unless you have a pre-conceived notion?

 

It also seems to be destroyed when God says "Remain at my right hand until" . . . another "until", pesky things, aren't they?

Not at all.  "Until I make thy foes thy footstool" pertains to the Second Coming of Christ and Armageddon. So Christ does remain at the right hand of the Father with all the saints gathered around Him until the Marriage of the Lamb has taken place.  After that He does come to crush all His enemies under His feet.

As I showed in another thread here is the actual relationship between the Rapture and the Second Coming. Only in a fantasy (or a dream) can people be going up (say in an elevator) and coming down AT THE SAME TIME.

                                             ↑                       ↓

 

                                  RAPTURE        SECOND COMING

 

[Ezra]

Omegaman, 

I think this is probably the best counter argument to the pre-tribulation rapture theory that I have ever heard in my life.  Very well done.  

Actually Omegaman failed to show whether Peter was even talking about the Rapture, let along the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  Peter was addressing Jews and talking about the restoration of all things pertaining to the Jews and Israel (as I already showed above).

[Esther4:14]

Omegaman, 

I think this is probably the best counter argument to the pre-tribulation rapture theory that I have ever heard in my life.  Very well done.  

Actually Omegaman failed to show whether Peter was even talking about the Rapture, let along the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  Peter was addressing Jews and talking about the restoration of all things pertaining to the Jews and Israel (as I already showed above).

Right, when I read your argument, I thought it was a very legalistic interpretation of a simple precept.  Peter was a disciple of Jesus and He didn't talk about the rapture; therefore, it is more than likely that the teaching of the rapture is an extra biblical teaching.  I think that it is unfortunate that you would complicate the simplicity of an account of a simple man giving a message to the people concerning the time of His return through the power of the Holy Spirit.   

I also found that Omegaman's message from these scripture reached a conclusion almost effortlessly, and your argument required a lot of effort to understand and required that I change many other scriptures to accommodate it as an interpretation.  Therefore, I stand by what I said to begin with. 

"Come to me, all who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Place my yoke over your shoulders, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble. Then you will find rest for yourselves ³⁰ because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”(Matthew 11:28-30).

[Ezra]

 

the teaching of the rapture is an extra biblical teaching.

An extra-biblical teaching is something which is not found in the Bible.  But the Rapture is indeed the Blessed Hope of the Church, so perhaps you need to go back and study the Rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18):

 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.

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.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

No one reading Acts chapter 3 (other than Omegaman) will even imagine that Peter has to say anything about this.  As to a post-Tribulation Rapture, one has to really strain at Scripture to come up with that scenario.

[Esther4:14]

 

the teaching of the rapture is an extra biblical teaching.

And extra-biblical teaching is something which is not found in the Bible.  But the Rapture is indeed the Blessed Hope of the Church, so perhaps you need to go back and study the Rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18):

 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.

 

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.

 

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

 

 

No one reading Acts chapter 3 (other than Omegaman) will even imagine that Peter has to say anything about this.

 

 

No offense Ezra, but this is not a good verse to prove your point.  For one it says that Jesus will descend from Heaven the same way Peter said he would meaning that they are both talking about the same thing.  For two, it describes the dead in Christ rising first, which is more than likely referring to the millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 because they are considered blessed (Revelation 20:6).  So, they are both talking about the same thing unless we try to make something up to differentiate them from each other.  They are both talking about things that are written in the last couple chapters of Revelation. 

[Ezra]

Esther,

No offence but you are thoroughly confused and I would recommend that you sort out these various doctrines (one-on-one in a personal setting) with the help of someone who knows Scripture.  I could not even begin to address all the issues with your misunderstanding of what is in the Word.

[Omegaman 3.0]

 

Quote

Why is it "embarrasing"? If the Lord comes to meet His Church IN THE AIR and returns back to Heaven immediately, then for all practical purposes He has not come to earth at His Second Coming.  If this is "IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE" it means in nanoseconds.  So what's your problem, unless you have a pre-conceived notion?

AND in another post:

Actually Omegaman failed to show whether Peter was even talking about the Rapture, let along the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  Peter was addressing Jews and talking about the restoration of all things pertaining to the Jews and Israel (as I already showed above)

Well, I can see that you might not think it need be embarrassing, and of course, how one feels is how one feels. I would have been embarrassed, because I would rather not respond, than to be so desperate that I had to grasp at such straws instead of swallowing my pride and saying: "You raise a good point!!

I am not a trained debater, never had a philosophy class, no legal training nor scientific training, so I do not know all of the words and phrases that people toss around here as if we know what they mean. Is it a straw man argument, when a person sort of changes the persons argument to a different one, and then answers the restated version?

You just said: "If the Lord comes to meet His church in the air and returns to Heaven immediately, then for all practical purposes He has not come to Earth at His second coming."  First thing I notice, you are not speaking to my argument. I was not putting forth the idea that Jesus comes to Earth, in Acts 3. I said that it is said that He cannot leave Heaven. So, what you have to be asserting, it seems to me, is that Jesus is somehow, able to meet His church in the air, without leaving Heaven, without remaining at the right hand of the Father. I, on the other hand, said nothing on that, about Him coming to earth, so there yo have changed my argument.

The second thing I notice, is that you  said that "He has not come to earth at His second coming". Maybe your position is a bit different that most pre-trib rapturists. I thought the common pre-trib understanding was along the lines of "The rapture is Jesus coming for His church, the second coming is Jesus coming with His church. I need to ask then. If Jesus is coming with His church at the second coming, where is He coming to? I know you know that there is a Greek word, a noun, used in Matt 24:27, Matt 24:37, Mat 24:39, 1 Cor 15:32 and 11 other places, that is sometimes translated as the word "coming". I also feel certain that you are aware that this noun is basically a combinations of words which mean "alongside" and "I am". The natural and usual way to understand the word (parousia), is in it's literal sense about being alongside or with one. The idea is not so much of the motion of coming (a verb) but the noun that results from coming. Fittingly, the word is often translated as presence or arrival. So, again I ask, presence or arrival where? The natural understanding would be coming to be present with them, where they are, earth. We go up to meet Him, and accompany Him back to earth, as it said in other places in the Bible.

I am assuming here that you just misspoke when you said that "He has not come to earth at His Second Coming" No problem, that happens sometimes.

You asked me: "So, what is your problem, unless you have preconceived ideas?" 

Originally, I had no preconceived ideas. I went to church, heard about a pre-trib rapture, and took it at face value. I accepted that teaching, and then I had a preconceived idea. It was preconceived, because it was fed to me, by people, I had not learned it from studying the Bible Then I heard there were other theories, I spent 8 months, every day for 8 months, reading the bible cover to cover, looking for the Bible's version of the end times chronology. The result was, that I was able to switch from accepting the preconceived manmade theory of a pre-trib rapture, to a different understanding rooted in scripture. I might still be wrong, but I know where my new, preconceived idea is from, the pages of Holy Writ, So yes, I have a preconceived idea. I have many of them. I believe in one God, a virgin birth, a triune creator, and Jesus' death on the cross for my sins, and His glorious, physical resurrection. I have preconceived ideas, lots of them, so sue me!

Finally you said:

"Actually Omegaman failed to show whether Peter was even talking about the Rapture, let along the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  Peter was addressing Jews and talking about the restoration of all things pertaining to the Jews and Israel"

Indeed Ezra! I failed to show that Peter was talking about the Rapture. I do not need to show that. All I showed was that He cannot leave Heaven at just any old time. Yet, that is what He must do, if there is to be a rapture wherein He meets His church mid-air. On the other hand, you failed to show that the text means "He cannot leave Heaven (with the exception of the rapture). I just prefer my failure to yours, in terms of each of us backing up our respective beliefs.

 

Quote

Only in a fantasy (or a dream) can people be going up (say in an elevator) and coming down AT THE SAME TIME.

But, it wouldn't be a fantasy or a dream if Jesus rode the elevator, down and then up? Take some time, and listen to yourself. It is just possible for some, to read the Bible, and accept it for what it says, without trying to make it make sense to us. Revelation trumps logic.

Thanks for you efforts!

[Omegaman 3.0]

A nice dialectic.

Thank you so much Last Daze, very kind!

[Last Daze]

 

Now, I once saw an attemp made, to say that Jesus does remain in Heaven, as long as He is in the air and His feet have not yet touched the ground. That to me, was the most embarrassing attemp to defend a position, that I think I have ever seen from a Christian.

Why is it "embarrasing"? If the Lord comes to meet His Church IN THE AIR and returns back to Heaven immediately, then for all practical purposes He has not come to earth at His Second Coming.  If this is "IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE" it means in nanoseconds.  So what's your problem, unless you have a pre-conceived notion?

 

It also seems to be destroyed when God says "Remain at my right hand until" . . . another "until", pesky things, aren't they?

Not at all.  "Until I make thy foes thy footstool" pertains to the Second Coming of Christ and Armageddon. So Christ does remain at the right hand of the Father with all the saints gathered around Him until the Marriage of the Lamb has taken place.  After that He does come to crush all His enemies under His feet.

As I showed in another thread here is the actual relationship between the Rapture and the Second Coming. Only in a fantasy (or a dream) can people be going up (say in an elevator) and coming down AT THE SAME TIME.

                                             ↑                       ↓

 

                                  RAPTURE        SECOND COMING

 

No one is saying that the same people are going up and coming coming down at the same time.  Talk about a strawman.  Acts tells how the return of Christ happens.

They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  Acts 1:11

How exactly was He taken up?

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.  Acts 1:9

• Christ leaves earth
• He begins ascending
• Clouds receive Him out of sight

Since Christ's return is plainly stated as happening in the same way as His ascension we know that His return goes like this:

• Christ comes in the clouds (resurrection / rapture)
• He descends (with His army)
• He returns to earth

Christ is the one descending.  Those who belong to Christ put on immortality and are gathered together to Him.  He's coming down and we're going up to meet Him (nanoseconds as you say).  Then He returns to earth.  There is no "up and down at the same time".  You should make an honest effort to understand other people's viewpoints instead of assuming things that you then discredit.  Otherwise, your motives appear suspect.

What's really bizarre is how you are depicting Christ's ascension.  According to your view of His return, the ascension had to have taken place like this since they happen the same way:

• Christ leaves earth
• He begins ascending
• He reaches the clouds and comes back to earth
• He stays on earth for years.  How many?  That depends on who you ask.
• At some point Christ leaves earth again
• He begins ascending for a second time
• Clouds receive Him out of sight

Please provide all the scriptural support for the items in red which must be true if Christ's ascension happened in the same way as your "pre-trib" view of His return.  Don't leave any out.  Hopefully, you can see the folly of the "pre-trib" notion.