pre trib rapture is fake true or false

[Serving]

4 hours ago, Paradigm said:

Apology accepted Serving. I also apologize for thinking your were deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I said. I see now that it was an honest mistake. I hope everything is cleared up and that you sleep well tonight.

No problem at all & thanks Paradigm, I appreciate it.

In the interest of not hijacking this thread even more, I will answer this the last time on this post, but if you wish to continue perhaps make a post & I'd be happy to pick up where we leave off ..

Quote

In light of the discussion, much of the content of that whole section is contrasting the order of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. It is showing that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior.

Which thing was following my train of thought in regards to using "priesthood" in place of "covenant" within that verse in question.

Quote

The entirety of chapter 7 is contrasting the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. Originally there were not chapter and verses designation, therefore the there would have been no division between the content of chapter 7 and 8. 

Hebrews 8

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant (The Word Covenant is Not There) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Chapter 9 picks right back up showing the contrast of the earthy and heavenly sanctuary

Hebrews 9

1 Then verily the first covenant (The word covenant is added and was not there) had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Therefore we can see that most of the content of these chapters is contrasting the order of Melchizedek with the order of Aaron and the earthly sanctuary with the heavenly. Using the ellipses of priesthood or sanctuary does not contradict the rest of scripture.

Firstly, I highlighted the verses where "covenant" was not missing (meaning the context was already established)  like it was missing in 8:7 + 8:13 + 9:1 .. you should see that the context is justified for using "covenant" opposed to using "priesthood" for 8:13, which was my point when you first questioned it's validity.

I would also point out that God makes it clear that the particular priesthood He is speaking of is far superior to the earthly priesthood (as you know) which correlates to my objection to your suggestion that using "priesthood" instead of "covenant" in 8:13 would be better .. I believe the merit of my stance harmonizes within the overall message above whereby God makes pain to point out the superiority between the earthly Priesthood opposed to the heavenly Priesthood in regards to you suggestion of it's (priesthood) superior usage over 8:13's usage of "covenant" of which I disagreed. 

Again, I do not like debating over translations, I believe all the squabbles over word usage can and is resolved by simply understanding the context, which is behind the approach I used for the above of which your last statement I would still disagree with, for, I do believe the incorrect usage would indeed contradict the intended meaning in it's implications alone towards Melchizedek's superior Priesthood over Aarons (mans) .. that is, "covenant" was and is indeed the correct intention rather than "priesthood".

Quote

Ephesians 2:11-13

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

What covenants were Gentiles strangers from, but are now made part of?

Brother, I do not see your question is accurate within the context of the message .. this is the gist of the context implied in the above found in Galatians :

Galatians 4:22-26

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

See? The promise those Gentiles actually entered into was the New Covenant which covenant was the actual PROMISE meant .. and that old covenant is NOT the same covenant you are trying to marry together with the gospels because by doing so, you are unawares leading people back to bondage which the fulfilled promise the Gentiles have entered into has freed us all from.

Notice fulfilled promise? That is, the old covenant was promising a new covenant which door the blood of Christ has opened to ALL MANKIND .. and that door now opened is NOT the same covenant of old, which covenant was BUT the promise of a better covenant to come .. which promise is now fulfilled is the new covenant .. and that is a big difference to what you are promoting, that the Old covenant is ALSO the gospels .. but it is not, because that old covenant leads to bondage.

This is WHY I am investing so much effort in dialoguing with you .. the focus hidden is to do with the SOURCE of the covenants in most cases whereby you are saying it is the covenants actually being ONE being spoken of .. but in actual fact is the source subtly being intended .. and that SOURCE is always the SAME, the Word of God, but the covenants are not.

I believe this reply alone is sufficient to also encompass the rest of your points .. nevertheless, if you wish me to answer your other examples I will gladly do so in the spirit of brotherliness and not spite.

[WilliamL]

On 4/15/2016 at 1:58 PM, Paradigm said:

If we err, it makes sense that we do so trying to figure out how much [of the Law of Moses] we can obey rather than how much we can disobey. 

Been there, done that, decades ago. It only leads to confusion and anxiety; and contention among brethren via those such as yourself who promote Mosaic Law-keeping.

Just the issue of circumcision of the flesh is enough: it is commanded by the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:3), but the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, annulled it for the Gentile Church. If you insist on the Law of Moses, you deny the Council's Spirit-led decree and Paul's teachings. If you keep the latter, you are denying or defying the Law of Moses. So you're stuck in confusion. And when you teach the Law to others, you only spread the confusion and create contention.

The Law of Moses, via the mediator Moses between God and Israel (Gal. 3:19; Deut. 5:5), was fulfilled in Christ, who was the one who talked with Moses on the Mount. ["The words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments," given directly to Israel without any mediator, continues.] When Christ died, the Law ceased to be in effect, because 1) not only did he fulfill it in every detail, but also 2) when one party to a contract dies, the contract legally ceases. This does not mean that there is not still wisdom to be gleaned from it, and that some of its traditions cannot be voluntarily observed; but those things are a whole other matter.

[Guest Thallasa]

On ‎28‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 10:32 AM, Kan said:

The rapture is false, and so is the trib as a specified length of time. I have never read of the rapture in the Bible. There are about 300 texts concerning the second advent of Christ, but none on a rapture. I have also heard that the rapture is a Jesuit teaching, no surprise there at all.

I have asked before, but none would answer, are there any texts which supposedly support the rap theory, which cannot be applied to the second advent?

How can anyone believe one word you say now ?"I have also heard that the rapture is a Jesuit teaching, no suprise there at all ", you write . This is a complete lie, and you are  a  blatant false witness .  You think you can get away with it, and be called a christian .

John Darby c. 1830, was the man who invented this theory , not any Jesuit  . 

[Guest Thallasa]

On ‎03‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 10:24 PM, ((Michael)) said:

I believe the rapture is something new as far as doctrines. I've read that the rapture doctrine was introduced into mainstream by a Thomas Darby in 1832. I believe the Jews who grew up reading the Tanakh understood there was a resurrection of the dead on the last day, and that God would bring His Kingdom here on earth in Jerusalem ( hope I'm saying this correct ). Look at the Acts 1:6-7

Acts 1:6-7 ⁶ So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” ⁷ He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.

Christ never rebuked them for implying what they had understood reading all the prophets, that a kingdom would be brought to earth. The rapture I see in scripture is a rapture of the wicked. Take a look at the parable of the wheat and the tares

Matthew 13:40-42 ⁴⁰ So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, ⁴² and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Also, you have scriptures that all point this "Last Day".....scriptures that suggest that Eternal Life is given "Last Day......Ressurrection happens "Last Day"...........Judgement is given "Last Day", look at the following passages about the last day:

John 11:24(NASB)²⁴ Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

John 12:48(NASB)⁴⁸ He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

John 6:40(NASB)⁴⁰ For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

 

I can't say I know for 100% certain whether there is no rapture or not. But I will say this, I think it's dangerous for any church or member of the body of Christ to think they will not have to endure the worst of times in tribulation. Matthew 24:22 (NKJV)²² And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

 

Michael you are wise in your  approach .   

[Last Daze]

On 4/15/2016 at 3:54 PM, Serving said:

Hi Daze,

Though I'd disagree with the mystery part, I do hear where you are coming from .. yet ..

Some scriptures to ponder :

Matthew 24:29-31 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: 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. 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.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 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: 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.

1 Corinthians 15: 51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The common denomination I can see is that a trumpet blows BEFORE the resurrection occurs .. Matthew mentions a trumpet sounding directly before the resurrection too, and Matthew calls it a "great sound of a trumpet", yet 1 Thess calls that trump before the resurrection the "trump of God", and 1 Corinth gives that trumpet right before the resurrection two titles .. the "last trump" and plain old "trumpet" ..  so that's 3 different titles (besides trumpet directly above) they gave to the same trumpet as far as I can discern?

And as I examine 1 Corinth to see if I can make your point work, I just can't get past how it says the "last trump" sounds right before the resurrection, which matches the others too.

Nevertheless, if you are proposing that Christ still has some butt kicking to do after the resurrection of the saints, then I would say yes .. He certainly does, no disagreement there .. Zechariah 14 for example confirms that, but one thing is certain .. it still all happens on that LAST DAY .. Zechariah even tell us what time during the day that it all climaxes too .. evening time.

So I'm not totally discarding your line of thought, if I was correct in "thinking your thoughts for you" that is, that there is still some "action" taking place after the 7th trump .. right?

If so, I'd totally agree .. except about the mystery & last trump  of course.

 

The way I see things currently is:

• The seventh trumpet announces the day of the Lord.  This is the last day of mystery Babylon (Satan's kingdom) when the kingdom of God is established on earth and when Satan is cast into the abyss.
• Immediately after the seventh trumpet sounds, Christ descends to the clouds and sounds the trumpet of God.  The trumpet of God is His shout.
• All who are Christ's are immortal and the angels gather them to Him.

There is more that follows but that part above pertains to the last trumpet.  I don't see where that's in conflict with what you've stated.

[Paradigm]

On 4/16/2016 at 2:02 AM, Serving said:

No problem at all & thanks Paradigm, I appreciate it.

In the interest of not hijacking this thread even more, I will answer this the last time on this post, but if you wish to continue perhaps make a post & I'd be happy to pick up where we leave off ..

Yes, I agree this has gotten too far off the actual topic. We have both said our peace and it is unlikely we are going to agree. Hopefully it has been fruitful in some way for folks following the discussion though. 

Thanks,
Keith

[Paradigm]

7 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Been there, done that, decades ago. It only leads to confusion and anxiety; and contention among brethren via those such as yourself who promote Mosaic Law-keeping.

Just the issue of circumcision of the flesh is enough: it is commanded by the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:3), but the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, annulled it for the Gentile Church. If you insist on the Law of Moses, you deny the Council's Spirit-led decree and Paul's teachings. If you keep the latter, you are denying or defying the Law of Moses. So you're stuck in confusion. And when you teach the Law to others, you only spread the confusion and create contention.

The Law of Moses, via the mediator Moses between God and Israel (Gal. 3:19; Deut. 5:5), was fulfilled in Christ, who was the one who talked with Moses on the Mount. ["The words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments," given directly to Israel without any mediator, continues.] When Christ died, the Law ceased to be in effect, because 1) not only did he fulfill it in every detail, but also 2) when one party to a contract dies, the contract legally ceases. This does not mean that there is not still wisdom to be gleaned from it, and that some of its traditions cannot be voluntarily observed; but those things are a whole other matter.

Serving is right that this kind of discussion is too much a deviation of the actual topic.  I will just say that if you put every proof text that you have in one scale and I put all of the others on the other side, the weight of scripture is strongly at odds with your theology. 

[n2thelight]

The resurrection happens at death

[Montana Marv]

2 hours ago, n2thelight said:

The resurrection happens at death

If that was the case, why try to bury a body, for it is not there.  Who do we see in a casket?  The body of the dead individual.  So the resurrection of the body does not happen at death.  It does not become immortal at death.  A lot of decayed flesh and many bones in them there cemeteries.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Kan]

On 4/17/2016 at 2:31 AM, Thallasa said:

How can anyone believe one word you say now ?"I have also heard that the rapture is a Jesuit teaching, no suprise there at all ", you write . This is a complete lie, and you are  a  blatant false witness .  You think you can get away with it, and be called a christian .

John Darby c. 1830, was the man who invented this theory , not any Jesuit  . 

Around 1827 to 1830 John Darby, from what I understand, was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, who did not use the term "rapture," which was but later used by two people who followed his works - Doddridge and Gill.

The rapture idea came from futurism which was taught in the RC priesthood as far back as the 1590's, namely by Jesuit Ribera, and was reintroduced by a Jesuit named Lucanza in 1812 to combat the Roman Catholic church being identified as the Antichrist by the results of the Bible going into global publication. A common doctrine shared by rapturists is that the RC church is not the Antichrist as taught by Bible students and the schools of the reformation.

Around this time, prophecy began to be opened up, particularly the book of Daniel as foretold by the angel to John the Revelator, and the world was exposed to these teachings, to such an extent that even Catholics knew Darby was wrong. Darby also taught more than one Advent of Christ in the future.

Another thing was happening in the world at the time, the Adventists, not to be confused with the following SDA's, were aware of the teaching of the second Advent of Christ. But at the same time around 1830, there were people having false 'visions' about the future which contradicted the Bible on this truth.

The bottom line of futurism is to hide the history of the Antichrist through dismissing true prophecy, and to divert the people's attention away from Christ, and His final ministry in heaven, and allow them to worship a false christ, by keeping them ignorant of many important things like the meaning of the sanctuary in heaven. Not just ignorant, but proud enough to scoff at its significance. It is another theme to this thread, but in summary the closure of this ministry marks the time of the Advent. We don't know when it will finish, but we are to benefit from it while it lasts, because it is specifically for the preparation of the saints in the last days. Can we afford to miss out? No.

How many know about it? How many know how it is the inner theme of Daniel and Revelation, and that it has specific dates and symbols right throughout prophecy to mark its stages? Almost none at this time.