The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)

[SisterWells]

Lol, that just kept going and going and going. I was scrolling from the bottom up thinking  that's a lot of verses until I finally  get to the title:

              100 Bible Verses about The Second Coming Of Jesus -

...and I laughed.

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

And I have answered that question. The mark of the best and Christ's coming in judgment in clouds occurred in 70 AD. 

We have a great deal of recorded history from the 1st century to the present. We know a great deal about Alexander the Great from 3 centuries before. It would seem that two events unprecedented in their profound nature would have a bit of papyrus for the purposes of posterity. 

You must be of the opinion it was all spiritual, no temporal, physical burden for the people of earth. 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

Ad hominem is intellectual dishonesty.

 

So we're done here. Sad that had to happen. Don't know why so many in Worthy can't not post ad hominem, but I've figured it out and choose not to collaborate with those who practice such content. 

It's a small but important distinction. I attacked content and thought processes, not you personally. By way of example; "You're intellectually dishonest." is not the same as, "There is intellectual dishonesty contained in your responses." Maybe a bit harsh and I apologize if you felt personally attacked. My point was about something I see quite often here; straw men. It's just not the correct spirit to shunt arguments to the side in favor of arguments irrelevant to the question. 

You did that by positing I had a personal interpretation different from the scriptural interpretation, and which were you supposed to answer; when I didn't offer commentary and only posted scripture verbatim and asked a question.

[iamlamad]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

The Doctrine of Imminence simply states Christ could return at any time. It does so in light of and within the context of the signs stated in scripture. To think, or imply or imagine Jesus will suddenly ignore his own teaching and come back without the signs occurring is a false belief. For example, many here believe a third temple will be built before Jesus returns. Well, the replacement temple of stone won't be built overnight tonight while we sleep. Therefore no one who believes a third temple must be built can ask, "What if he comes back tomorrow?" without proving themselves hypocrites and false teachers. To say a third temple must be built is to necessarily delay his return. 

Partial-prets, amils, and postmils do not have that problem. We await Christ's return without such requirements. 

And we do not have the history of false teachers acting stupidly by setting dates. Only Dispensationalists do that. 

I am glad you agree it is foolishness to do so. I think anyone who subscribes their eschatology should look at the fruit it bears in this regard. 

Are you saying Jesus cannot return until the temple is built? Can you find a scripture for that? When He tells us no man knows the day or hour, is that not saying "no signs?" Well, Paul gives us a sign: it will be when people are thinking and saying "peace and safety." That could be today. I doubt seriously if that could be any time after the 70th week. I doubt if that could be after the first 6 trumpet judgments. 

Therefore no one who believes a third temple must be built can ask, "What if he comes back tomorrow?" without proving themselves hypocrites and false teachers. To say a third temple must be built is to necessarily delay his return.   Sorry, but such a statement is myth, plain and simple. The temple MAY be built before the rapture but may be built in the first weeks or months of the 70th week.  What you are missing is timing. Christ comes - the rapture takes place - the Day of the Lord starts (6th seal)  - days later the 7th seal is opened and the 70th week begins....simply progression following the word of God. The temple could be built before He comes, or after He comes. Either scenario will fit the scriptures. The temple MUST be built and sacrifices started before the MIDPOINT of the week. 

Note: it makes no difference what PEOPLE do: what we should concentrate on is the written word and to understand the Author's intent. God will hold EACH person individually responsible for understanding His word.  The excuse: "my pastor never taught that" will not work. 

If you think the word of God teaches "partial-preterist" theory, then you have to go with it. I can only say, what if that is not God's theory? Have you asked Him? Has He answered?

[iamlamad]

6 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, we do. None of it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why does the Spirit-inspired record contain no record of Jerusalem's destruction or other important events like the martyring of Paul or Peter? 

Well, the most likely, reasonable Occam's Razor answer is because the inspirational writings were all concluded prior to 70 AD! 

The fact is much of the ancient histories following 70 AD confirm what is written in scripture... when scripture interprets scripture.

Not at all. I believe much of the prophesies were literal and I believe much of what was figurative literally happened, it just didn't literally happen based on literal readings of what is figuratively stated. There was plenty of temporal, physical burden: a whole nation was destroyed along with its religious institutions and the spiritual, religious, political, and social-economic standing of the entire world was permanently changed so profoundly that we experience the effects to this day. 

 

I stand corrected about the ad hominem and there is no need to apologize for my feelings. However, the straw man and therefore intellectual dishonesty is yours because no intellectual dishonesty of my part was proven. It was a baseless statement. It was built on a red herring: the ideas scripture does not need defining or that defining and understanding are mutually exclusive ideas (false dichotomy). Labeling that intellectual dishonesty is an appeal to ridicule. Lastly, I'm glad to read an acknowledgment of "attack." I am often accused of  attacking others' views and attacking them personally even though, like you, I am simply endeavoring to demonstrate either flaws in whatever case is presented or a better, more scripturally veracious alternative. 

That post has four lines in it and none of them provide any evidence refuting what I posted. Now, as this off-topic review ensues it can be seen a number of fallacies were deployed including but not limited to red herring, false dichotomy, straw man, appeal to ridicule, and open opposition without a single word of evidence related to the previous post. 

 

 

So regroup, Diaste. We were discussing the problems with post hoc inquiries being used as refutation. I have stated on the occasion a post hoc has any veracity it is incumbent upon the one deploying the post hoc argument to prove its veracity and that has not been done. In order to do that you'll have to render scripture exegeticall, not eisegetically based upon a pre-existing eschatology imposed on the text. That hasn't been done, either. 

I'm waiting. 

I don't even understand what you said!

[iamlamad]

10 hours ago, Josheb said:

Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation?

Where do you find scripture to say, "I, Jesus, am going to leave behind all of those I have purchased with my blood because they were not looking the moment I appeared. The purchase of my blood can be negated simply by not watching."? 

And what, exactly, specifically, do you think a "salvation apart from sin" is? Because the supposed rapture is definitely related to sin. 

Using something other than the KJV will prove useful because its rendering of Hebrews 9:28 does not well serve the Greek.

Are you aware that the phrase "Second Coming" does not appear anywhere in the Bible? Are you aware that the closest anyone will come to finding any mention of a second coming is this verse, Hebrews 9:28, and it specifically and explicitly says the salvation it it citing is one apart from sin?  Looking at this verse now in light of what I have just highlighted do you also realize how many teachers have misused the verse to make it says something it does not actually state? 

Do you know what a "false cause" is? Looking for Jesus does not cause salvation. Looking for Jesus does not cause rapture. The word in the Greek is "apekdechomenois," which means "eagerly awaiting," not "looking." I eagerly await Christ's return and have stated this dozens of times in this forum, especially when being falsely accused of being a full-preterist and not looking for the blessed hope (Titus 2:13). 

 

So, yeah, how about if we go by what is actually written, and written about the matter as a whole and not rip one half of a verse from its inherent context to make it say things it does not state? The verse does not state some Christians will be left behind. 

Romans 8:22-25  
 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.  And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.  For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?  But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
 

Galatians 5:1-6  
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.  And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.  You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor  uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
 

Hebrews 9:24-28  
For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;  nor was it that he would offer himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.  Otherwise, he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.  And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,  so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await him.
 

Jude 1:17-25  
But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,  that they were saying to you, 'In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.'  These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.  But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,  keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.  And have mercy on some, who are doubting;  save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.  Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of his glory blameless with great joy,  to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Yes, let's go by what is written. .

Where do you find scripture to say, "I, Jesus, am going to leave behind all of those I have purchased with my blood because they were not looking the moment I appeared. The purchase of my blood can be negated simply by not watching."? 

 

We don't go by what the bible does NOT say - we go by what it DOES Say. Let's look together:

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.

Now, a simple question: WHO gets caught up? It has an easy answer: ONLY those "in Christ." it is understood that those which are alive and remain are also limited to those IN CHRIST. So then, who is left behind? It would be all those at that moment in time NOT "in Christ."  Did Christ die for those not in Christ? Certainly He did! He is not willing that ANY should perish. He reconciled the whole world to God. Yet, billions will be left behind. 

Now let's look at that other verse: Several translations just in case one missed it:

KJ21

so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto those who look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin, unto salvation.

ASV

so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.

AMP

so Christ, having been offered once and once for all to bear [as a burden] the sins of many, will appear a second time [when he returns to earth], not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation to those who are eagerly and confidently waiting for Him.

AMPC

Even so it is that Christ, having been offered to take upon Himself and bear as a burden the sins of many once and once for all, will appear a second time, not to carry any burden of sin nor to deal with sin, but to bring to full salvation those who are [eagerly, constantly, and patiently] waiting for and expecting Him.

BRG

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

CSB

so also Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

CEB

In the same way, Christ was also offered once to take on himself the sins of many people. He will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Who is the true Author of this Word? It is God. I did not write this. 

exactly, specifically, do you think a "salvation apart from sin" is?  Simple. When He comes FOR His Bride, He is not coming to pay for sin again: He did that His first coming. The Amplified said it this way: "not to deal with sin." His second coming is not to deal with sin, but to collect His bride. 

Are you aware that the phrase "Second Coming" does not appear anywhere in the Bible?  I can read: We know He came once - so if He comes again, it will be the second time: right? Here is a verse telling us of a second coming:

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.

Does this say "coming?" I know it does.  Here are two more: 

1 Corinthians 1:7  So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

If we added up all the verses about His coming, we would have many comings. We must use wisdom to see if they are all about ONE MORE coming or TWO MORE comings. So you don't wonder, I will tell you right out that I believe He will come the second time FOR His bride, then a third time WITH His bride.  Of course I can show scriptures for these. 

Looking at this verse now in light of what I have just highlighted do you also realize how many teachers have misused the verse to make it says something it does not actually state?   Are YOU going to look at it for what it DOES SAY?

Looking for Jesus does not cause salvation. Looking for Jesus does not cause rapture.  Of course not. That is not at all what this verse is saying. What it IS saying is He, Jesus, knows the thoughts and intents of the heart. When He comes the second time FOR His bride, He will appear ONLY to those who are expecting Him. What does this really mean? It was explained very well be a young lady from South American whom Jesus took to heaven and showed her many things: for one thing, the rapture. She saw a pastor banging his head against something, saying, "why am I left behind? Why am I left behind?" She asked Jesus, "why was He left behind?" Jesus answered that he (the pastor) thought Jesus was not coming for a long time." You see, the thoughts and intents of the heart: HE WAS NOT EXPECTING Jesus when He came, so He was left behind.  Now read it again:

Even so it is that Christ, having been offered to take upon Himself and bear as a burden the sins of many once and once for all, will appear a second time, not to carry any burden of sin nor to deal with sin, but to bring to full salvation those who are [eagerly, constantly, and patiently] waiting for and expecting Him.

What is it saying? He will bring salvation to those who are eagerly WAITING for and EXPECTING Him. Question: if someone is expecting to see the Beast first, can they honestly say they are expecting Jesus TONIGHT? I don't see how. As I read that verse, it tells me that for those who expect other things first, they won't see Him, He won't appear to them, and they will be left behind. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is how I read it. You say you are expecting Him - but are you expecting Him TOMORROW or TONIGHT? 

rip one half of a verse from its inherent context to make it say things it does not state?  Does this verse mention a "second appearance?" Check! Could that be taken as a "second coming?" Certainly if the Bride meets Him in the air, they will SEE HIM so it could also be said that He will appear to them. (We don't know: He may well appear to the entire world at His second coming.) The amplified goes on to say, "to bring to full salvation." Could the Bride getting their resurrection bodies be also stated as "full salvation?" I think so. Therefore we can go by what it DOES STATE. I understand fully that some read with preconceived glasses that prevent them from understanding what others may see in a verse. 

the redemption of our body.   That will happen at the rapture, which will be his second coming. 

are waiting for the hope of righteousness  I am waiting; I hope all believers are waiting. But beyond waiting, we must also be expecting. 

will appear a second time   WHERE? Where will He appear? From another verse we know He will appear in the clouds which are in the air. 

building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit  The truth is, most believers have no idea what this means and can't do it. They bypassed Acts 1 and 2 in their Christian walk. 

waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. Could this mean eagerly waiting, like "looking" as some translators put it? 

[iamlamad]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Please read my posts more carefully. Please read my posts as whole with each post building upon what was previously posted. Why? 

Because I explicitly stated "Some here believe...." 

I would NOT be one of those people.

In that very post I plainly, explicitly stated, "Partial-prets, amils, and postmils do not have that problem. We await Christ's return without such requirements." so it is irrational to conclude I might possibly be saying "Jesus cannot return until the temple is built."

 

It is those Christians who are compromising the doctrine of imminence, not me. My eschatology doesn't have that problem. Whatever problems it may be suspected of having the compromise of imminence is not one of them. You brought up the matter of imminence and my response is, "Yep," Jesus might come back tomorrow and if he does I'll see you on the other side of resurrection. Not a problem for those from my end of things. 

Big huge problem for Dispensationalists, though.

So take your point, concerns, critiques, criticisms, and dissent to them, not me because 1) it doesn't apply to me but it does to them and 2) I don't want you to have double standards. Your point is well taken so apply it uniformly to all and realize it isn't this op that has the problem with imminence..... it is the dissent! 

Anyone placing the return of Christ on the pre-existence of a temple cannot say Jesus is coming tomorrow. 

I'm already on record stating I can't subscribe to the political aspects of Reconstruction because I don't God is dependent upon humanity or human works (for anything). 

 

So please take more care with the specifics of my posts. I am not saying Jesus cannot return until a temple is built. I don't believe a third temple will be built and if one is built it will have nothing to do with Matthew 24 or Revelation. 

Here is what you DID wrote: as in copy and paste:

"Well, the replacement temple of stone won't be built overnight tonight while we sleep. Therefore no one who believes a third temple must be built can ask, "What if he comes back tomorrow?" without proving themselves hypocrites and false teachers. To say a third temple must be built is to necessarily delay his return. "

Agreed, it won't be built overnight.  But I DO believe a third temple must be built because scripture tells us it must be built.  Yet, I can ask with a perfectly clear conscience "what If He comes back tomorrow." And I will not be proving myself a hypocrite or a false teacher. What is false is YOUR STATEMENT. Just so you know, the new temple will probably go up very quickly. My guess is, the stones are already hued and waiting. 

it is irrational to conclude I might possibly be saying "Jesus cannot return until the temple is built."  And I am saying it is irrational to say "Therefore no one who believes a third temple must be built can ask, "What if he comes back tomorrow?" without proving themselves hypocrites and false teachers."

It is those Christians who are compromising the doctrine of imminence,  So because I believe a 3rd temple will be built, you are saying I am compromising the doctrine of imminence? I think you need to think this through a little more carefully.  The ONLY scriptural requirement is that the third temple be completed and daily sacrifices are taking place BEFORE the abomination Jesus spoke of will take place. 

Big huge problem for Dispensationalists, though.  You have yet to bring up ANY real problems for dispensationalists. Oh, perhaps they exist in your thinking, but they don't REALLY exist, because dispensations are TRUTH. It is truth that Jesus could return any moment. 

Anyone placing the return of Christ on the pre-existence of a temple   I don't know of ANYONE that does.

I don't believe a third temple will be built and if one is built it will have nothing to do with Matthew 24 or Revelation. 

It is OK if you choose to ignore or symbolize the scriptures that speak of a new temple. That is between you and God. It is OK if you take prophecy for our future and make it history. Just don't expect pretribbers to swallow your theories. 

Note, a banker does not teach his or hers tellers all about counterfeit bills: no, they are taught all about the REAL bills, so they can easily recognize a counterfeit. 

We as believers must be carefully when studying revelation that we learn the real so we will not be swayed by any counterfeits. 

[iamlamad]

Just now, Roar said:

This, in my humble opinion, is "false teaching" based on the authors Peterist beliefs. 

Perhaps he was not "teaching" but just stating his beliefs. 

[iamlamad]

32 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I completely agree and that is how and why I subscribe to "postamil" eschatology.  I endeavor to read God's word as written, plainly read with proper exegesis applied as consistently as I can muster based on my God-given faculties and the inspiration, empowerment, and collaboration of God's Holy Spirit. 

When God commands us to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it and never revokes that command I read that as written  and believe it just the way it is stated and in a manner consistent with the whole of scripture. 

When God tells the eleven they have all his authority and power and commands them to go make disciples of all nations I believe him and endeavor to pick up where they left off. 

When Jesus says the events he described in Matthew 23 and 24 are going to come upon "this generation" of those in whose eyes he is looking when he spoke, I read that as written, plainly stated and believe it. I don't try to make it say "that generation." And I understand it happened in the generation of the first century audience just as he stated it would whether I understand the details or not. 

When John states the revelation he was having was about events that were going to happen quickly because the time was then near at hand I believe it exactly as written, plainly read. I don't try to make the word "near" mean more than 2,000 years later, or in any way inconsistent from the way scripture has always uniformly used the word "near." 

When Acts 2 states the oath of a Davidic was spoken about the resurrection that is what I concentrate on.  I read it as written and believe it as stated. 

When Psalm 110 states Jesus will remain enthroned until his Father makes his enemies his footstool I believe and concentrate on what is written, plainly read and properly exegeted. 

 

It makes no difference what people do; I concentrate on the written word as written, plainly read, and properly exegeted. 

And I have done so repeatedly throughout my posts. 

So I'm glad we have an agreement to concentrate on the written word. 

I'm glad because the Bible never says the world will be surrendered to satan. The Bible never says the church will become impotent and in need of rescue. The Bible never says God is dependent upon human construction plans. The Bible never says "near" means 2000 years later. The Bible never states a third temple will be built. 

And if we do concentrate on the written word all this is clear.

I, on the other hand, put more weight on the rest of Revelation, and not on one sentence. I think Jesus was clear that it was the generation that saw all those things he mentioned coming together - and not necessarily the generation He was addressing. I put a lot of weight on God being able to write prophecy SO CLEARLY that all will know and recognize when a specific prophecy happens. For example, the 6th trumpet when 1/3 of earth's population is killed.  The ONLY way in my mind anyone could make that an event in history is to symbolize it into something else. However, if you have figured out how to fit that into history, hurrah for you.

The Bible never says the church will become impotent and in need of rescue.  Not in those exact words: God used the word "escape," and not because the church became impotent, but because God is about to pour out His wrath and has agreed not to set any appointments for us with His wrath. 

The Bible never says God is dependent upon human construction plans.  Not in those exact words: but God did say that all authority is given to Jesus then told the disciples to GO. "God" is something God could not do for Himself; He needed the body of Christ on earth to accomplish the going. 

The Bible never states a third temple will be built.  Not in those exact words. But John was (or will be again?) told to go and measure it. Paul stated that the man of sin will enter it. God stated their will be worshipers in it. What are you going to do with those verses? Symbolize them? If so, could we be allowed to call that a "copout?"

the Bible never says the world will be surrendered to satan Not in those exact words. But it is very clear, God introduced John to the Dragon, then to the Beast the Dragon will control, then tells us that He, God, will give the Beast (and of course the Dragon behind the Beast) 42 months of authority. What does that mean? Just what is tells us: God is going to give authority to the Beast for 42 months. God will ALLOW the Beast to have power over the saints.

Perhaps the bible says more on these things than you think it says. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

54 minutes ago, Josheb said:

How Ironic. 

First, I myself stated it was those in Christ who would be saved. What you've done is confirm what I stated.

Second, you've explicitly stated we concentrate on what is written but the verses you yourself quoted do not state, "It would be all those at the moment in time not in Christ who are left behind." In other words, you've contradicted yourself! You have no concentrated on what is actually written. You've violated your own standard by reading into the text claims it does not make. Nothing in 1 Thes. 4:16-17 precludes anyone from being caught up. The verses instead state quite explicitly those that are alive and remain will be caught up and it states that without any statement any will be excluded. 

So you didn't concentrate on what is written. 

You did the same thing with Hebrews 9:28. The eager awaiting is not causal, it is correlative. Huge difference. I pointed this out to you in the previous post and you've done nothing to address that matter. NOTHING! I showed you a nadful of verses showing all Christians eagerly, anxiously await Christ's retunr and that too has been ignored. You have done nothing to address that matter. Nothing! 

We are not having a conversation with each other if and when...

1) What I actually write is ignored, 

2) What I argue against is assumed to be what I believe, 

3) You don't stick with the flow of the conversation. 

 

This is now the fourth or fifth abuse of what I wrote or what God wrote in a row. Make it right. Or don't. I won't collaborate further until you do. Start by addressing the fact Hebrews 9:28 is correlative, not causal. 

It may be ironic that others don't say what you want them to say. Oh well. You are the one that mentioned "left behind." 

What you've done is confirm what I stated.  GOOD! this is great: it is one point we can agree on. This is a good thing, not an ironic thing.  (If only the rest of your beliefs could be agreed on so easily.)

"It would be all those at the moment in time not in Christ who are left behind." In other words, you've contradicted yourself! You have no concentrated on what is actually written. You've violated your own standard by reading into the text claims it does not make. Nothing in 1 Thes. 4:16-17 precludes anyone from being caught up. I agree. I did do that. But the reason should be clear: the whole world is NOT going to be caught up. It is only going to be those "in Christ" that are caught up. I guess you don't believe that. Nothing in 1 Thes. 4:16-17 precludes anyone from being caught up.  I disagree. I think the term "in Christ" precludes all who are NOT "in christ" from being caught up. 

By the way, why would you write  Nothing in 1 Thes. 4:16-17 precludes anyone from being caught up." Do you form doctrine from an isolated text, or do you form doctrine from the whole counsel of God? It would appear you form doctrine from an isolated text. 

Did you not read in chapter  5 how Paul separates "they" and "them" from "ye" and "brethren" and "us." He is showing that not all people are going to be caught up. He speaks of those who are of the night (not in Christ) and those who are of the day (IN Christ.) Paul goes on to show us that in one moment of time, TWO (2) groups of people will end up with TWO different results: those that are of the Day, those that have the Breastplate of Faith, those that are "children of the Light" those that have the helmet of Salvation (those in Christ) will get 'salvation" or get raptured up, whole those NOT in Christ get left behind to face sudden destruction.  It will all happen in one moment of time.He goes on to say, those that get caught up get to "live together with Him." (So shall we ever be with the Lord.) Therefore, when Paul wrote "WE which are alive and remain" does preclude some from being caught up: those NOT in Christ.

But I get your point: it does NOT speak of those "in Christ" and still NOT caught up. For that we must refer to OTHER scriptures. Again, we form doctrine from the ENTIRE counsel of God.  

Can we find other verses that speak of the SAME event? I find Hebrews 9:28 speaking of the very same event: Jesus coming the second time for His saints. If you wish to ignore what it says, that is between you and God. I cannot ignore it. 

Let's speak of another verse: Matthew 6:15

¹⁵ But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Many people imagine they are qualified for heaven while they are holding unforgiveness. I know: it does not come right out and say word for word that these people are not qualified for heaven. Can we determine from this verse that they are not? I would ask: can God allow even ONE SIN into heaven? I submit He cannot.  Next question: can someone "In Christ" hold unforgiveness?" I think you know the answer. Therefore I submit that when we look at other verses outside of 1 thes. 4 & 5, we can determine that ALL in Christ are not qualified for the rapture and some will be left behind.  You may disagree. 

I pointed this out to you in the previous post and you've done nothing to address that matter. NOTHING! I showed you a nadful of verses showing all Christians eagerly, anxiously await Christ's retunr and that too has been ignored. You have done nothing to address that matter. Nothing!   Actually. I commented on each of them. Perhaps you did not like my comments. They were all good verses but they don't UNDO what 9:28 tells us. Again, we form doctrine from the entire counsel of God, not isolated verses. It is OK if you don't believe that verse as I do. All I am saying is, if you ignore it, it could be to your own detriment.  Of it could be I am not reading it correctly. 

This is now the fourth or fifth abuse Why do you consider it an abuse if I don't write what you WANT me to write? Please, calm down and don't get offended! We are two brothers in Christ conversing via the internet. Too many on these threads get offended. Perhaps if we just took ONE verse or one principle at a time you would not feel abused. 

Hebrews 9:28 is correlative, not causal.   You may well attempt to overwhelm me with high falutin words, or greater intellect, and you probably could, because I am a simple man. I have to look up some of the words you use. So please tell me and the readers, what do you mean by correlative versus causal? Does it really make a difference to the meaning? I think the meaning comes out very clearly in the Amplified. However, again I must agree with you: this verse DOES NOT SAY what will happen to those who are NOT eagerly looking for Him. It only tells us of those who ARE.  It just leaves the reader wondering about the rest.   I personally think we should consider the flip side of not just this verse but many others. For me personally, I WANT to be eagerly looking for Him.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

56 minutes ago, Roar said:

Considering so many similar type posts where others views are held up for derision because they conflict with his, I no longer consider that even a remote possibility. 

Example see the post below that disparages your beliefs.

I agree, but I also refuse to be offended. I LIVE by the principle that we reap what we sow. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by iamlamad