Is Rapture the correct term?

Most of what everyone believes is a cross section of the Scripture. Very few "doctrines" are derived from a single passage. Then when they are, persons of another view scream, "that's not what that says, you can't get that out of that". Then when you site several passages along a single line of reasoning attempting to confirm (with two or three witnesses, scripture explaining scripture) your accussed of somersaulting through the scripture picking and pasting in order to "prove" ones point. There is no way to convience anyone of "a" view, when they have already convienced themselves of another.

The covenant, confirmed for one week, (seven years in duration) that is spoken of in Daniel is the short lived peace Israel will think it is enjoying during the first 3 1/2 years of the Great Tribulation. The second 3 1/2 will see the abomination of desolation (the defiling of the Holy of Holies by the anti-christ) and the breaking of the treaty with Israel and the descriptions of that time by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

And you ignored my comment concerning "The Second Coming".

And the only "excess baggage" that exists within the Rapture doctrine are the ones attached to it by the opponents of it.

 

Isaiah 9:6-8 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

You seem to have a personal theology development through the reading of the works of other men that holds the view prophesies will be, or have been, fulfilled spiritually rather than physically.
Therefore in your search for scriptural interpretation, you are looking for, and will only consider interpretations that fit or confirm your personal theology.

RevJWWhiteJr:

Great post #81......

 

Cheap shot. Not at all true. Like I wrote earlier, I am still evaluating - and with an open Bible.

I could have said the same thing to you, but didn't.

Lets just take off the magic mind-reader hats and get back to discussion.

 

:laugh: Now dat d'are wuz FUNNY! :laugh:

I gatta admit that one was good :thumbs:

 

Where did all this come from? I think you are being pretty defensive where I didn't even attack. I just asked you - am still asking you - where you get all this from Daniel.

And, no, I not "ignoring" your second coming comment. I just have to do one thing at a time, preferably focusing on an actual passage (hence Daniel 9) so that we do not deal with broad interpretation but with firm scripture that we both know to be inspired and foundational.

 

Its the coffee kicking in.:tongue3:

 

Therefore in your search for scriptural interpretation, you are looking for, and will only consider interpretations that fit or confirm your personal theology.

I could have said the same thing to you, but didn't.

Yes, you could have, and I would have had to admit to a personal theology.
Its something I have been developing for many years; but I try to keep it fluid and changeable each time I encounter a passage that does not support my theology.
I try to change my theology to agree with the scripture, not the other way around.

It seems to me fairly plain the power of the kingdom of God was shown just a few days later with the appearance of those in Mk 9:4 and again just a few weeks later by the resurrection.(Rom 1:4)
And some of the hearers of Mk 9:1 witnessed both.

I suppose I took your inquiry too lightly and answered in the vain of Pro 26:5 when I should have followed Pro 26:4.
I apologize.

 

To separate the 70th week from the 69th week by 2,000 years is a very odd thing to do.

 

Daniel 9:25-27
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
(This is fulfilled)

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:
(This is fulfilled)

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
(This is fulfilled)

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: (The 70th week, the final seven years.)

(Since the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948, this event has yet to take place. Israel has made agreements, cease fires, false cease fires, and various shaky so called unreliable "peace treaties" with minimal or no success to date, but has never signed with anyone a genuine binding peace agreement or "covenant". This has yet to be fulfilled. And since we are approximately 2000 years in real time removed from the birth of Jesus, we can assume the 70th week of Daniel is still in our future to be fulfilled. The time of Jacob's Trouble or "great tribulation" mentioned in three of the four gospels, and detailed in the book of Revelation. Such a time on earth as no one has ever seen or will ever again.)

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
(There have been no sacrifices since 70 AD. There is no temple for them to take place in, and they will have to begin again before that can be brought to a halt.)


and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Yet to be fulfilled near or at the end of the great tribulation.)

 

Forgive the misunderstanding. I was not being defensive, I thought myself to be pre-explanatory.

My intent was to point out that many of the subjects of scripture are often not mentioned or described directly, but are derived from the context or the cross reference of other scripture passages. A passage can imply a given teaching without the mention of it directly. That gives way to any individual that does not hold that view suggesting that since it is not mentioned directly, it is not to be interpreted as such.

That was my only point.

Bro. Chip

 

I don't wish to put words in RevWhite's mouth but many who hold to the positions RevWhite is showing feel since the OT prophesies are to and of the Jews, those time-lines are in effect only while the Jew is the main focus as God's messengers to the rest of the world.

Therefore, with the above in mind, the turning from the Jew to the gentile as shown by the ministry of Paul, and the physical destruction of the Temple have effect of the continuation of the time-line.

I have no doubt had "all Israel" accepted that Jesus was the promised Messiah, then the time-line would not have been broken and the other things of prophecy would have followed shortly.

 

I imagine that all Christians would have to have a personal theology, the only alternative being a silly-putty whatever-my-pastor-believes theology. The perfect truth doesn't just hop into our heads from Bible reading; I believe it is always colored somewhat by the messengers.

I still believe that all of the synoptic parallels, as well as the "coming into the kingdom" allusions don't allow for your view. As well, the time-frame of just a few days does not satisfy a significant part of Jesus' promise (some standing here will not taste death). Jesus was often misunderstood, both because of the deep spirituality of many of His teachings and the obtuseness of His hearers. But he was always forthright in His comments. His saying (that some standing with Him would not taste death until...etc.) clearly implies that some would die in that time period. A few days does not satisfy that. No one "tasted death" in those few days.

Likewise the Acts 1 or 2 fulfilment doesn't seem to fit: True, Judas died, but the disciples minus Judas doesn't seem to fit with "some standing here". Plus, the parallels seem to require Christ's coming into His kingdom to be more than what happened in Acts (or at the Transfiguration).

No problem, friend. We all do this from time to time.

 

So far so good, except the "he" of verse 27 is the Messiah ("This is the New Covenant in My blood.").

Please look more closely into what is meant by this confirming of the covenant in Daniel. The key word is "BIGBIR". It is never used for something written up from scratch as your antichrist is assumed to do. Rather it always refers to something already existing. The English word "confirm" implies as much. Your scenario would require a phrase like "draw up a covenant". More on this, and on these verses in Daniel can be found here:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/605167131/six-promises-of-christ-to-his-people-updated/

I have to get ready for work. More later.

Yes, I agree, doctrine is very often arrived at comparing verses and passages from different parts of the Bible. But there always comes a point where, discussing a certain tenet of those doctrines, we have to light somewhere and deal with certain passages thoroughly.

I believe your whole scenario of separated final week of Daniel, a covenant-making-and-breaking antichrist, etc. are not from comparing passage A with passage B, but are neither here nor there - with no Biblical foundation at all.

 

That's a bunch of nonsense.

 

asterisktom,

I imagine that all Christians would have to have a personal theology, the only alternative being a silly-putty whatever-my-pastor-believes theology.

That was quiet funny to me, I guess because it hit close to home.
Now I know why my pastor crosses the street when he sees me coming.......

The perfect truth doesn't just hop into our heads from Bible reading; I believe it is always colored somewhat by the messengers.

Agreed, and that is why we must compare their "color" with scripture.

Likewise the Acts 1 or 2 fulfilment doesn't seem to fit: True, Judas died, but the disciples minus Judas doesn't seem to fit with "some standing here". Plus, the parallels seem to require Christ's coming into His kingdom to be more than what happened in Acts (or at the Transfiguration).

I agree with you that all the explanations you listed have problems and I wish you had stated those problems from the beginning for this passage is like many other passages in that it can have many lessons taught from it depending on the depth one wishes to investigate.

I teach a SS class made up of like "aged" individuals; but that does not mean they are in the same place theologically speaking.
I have a habit of touching on the "lighter" meaning of a passage and then getting deeper depending on the questions asked by class members for I do not wish to over-whelm them; but also wish to fuel an inquiring mind.

My take of the passage, whether from Matt, Mk, or Luke is that Jesus is prophesying of His Second Advent.
I get this from the "after six days" of Mat 17 and Mk 9 along with the "about an eight days" of Luke 9.
What is after 6 and about 8 but 7.

When the above is considered in light of 2Pet 3:8 I see Jesus saying after 6,000 yrs; but before 8,000 yrs this will happen.

IMO Jesus is saying when the two witnesses of Rev 11 show up; then His Second Coming is not far behind.
I also note the passages in question are followed closely in Mat and Mk by discussion of Elias being compared to John the Baptist.
This leads me to feel Jesus is saying the whole matter is contingent upon whether all Israel accepts Him or not. (see Mat 11:14)
Therefore it could be fulfilled rather soon; but if not, it would be fulfilled later, all dependant upon the choice of man.
(IMHO God's plan will come about in spite of man's choices.)

This interpretation would also fit the some will die; but not all statements.
So far as those "standing here" would refer to those on earth at the time of Rev 11.
It also fits the seemingly discrepancy between the "kingdom of God" and "my kingdom" statements.

I do understand my interpretation is "colored" with the premillennial view; and I also feel it is the only view that fully explains a literal, untouched reading of scripture.

That's just my take on the passages, do with them as you will.

I note you have started a new thread on the subject so I don't intend on touching this subject again in this thread.

No problem, friend. We all do this from time to time.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

It very well could be.

IMO the time-line is more associated with God's covenant relationship to Israel.

We see in Zec 11 God broke the Mosaic Covenant at the crucifixion and the new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah (Heb 8:8) is yet future by the description of it in Zec 13 and Jer 31.

The time between Daniel's 69th and 70th wk is most likely the same time period between the breaking of the Mosaic Covenant and the future instigation of the New Covenant.

 

If, as you suggest, the "he" is Messiah, then this would mean that it is Messiah who makes desolate...that He is the abomination of desolation.

You sure of who "he" is?

At this point, Messiah is cut off.

This is an aspect of Christ's first coming. The Jews expected national salvation, Christ brought spiritual salvation.

Christ's return is expected by most at the end of the tribulation, as we read in Revelation.

This is why rapture believers see a significance in our be gathered to Him in the clouds. Again, I am not dogmatic on this teaching, but I do lean more towards it happening than not.

When He returns, He will physically return to the earth (Zech. 14).

The tribulation is the Day of the Lord. It is a time of judgement. It is the final week which applies to Israel.

The passages found in the gospels refer to this time.

One will be left, one will be taken (in judgement).

We know the Day of the Lord will come as a thief (those it befalls will not see it coming).

We know it is coming, and those who are His do not fear this day, whereby Paul says we can comfort one another. Not be in fear of death nor the coming wrath of God.

But I have never heard one try to make the "he" of 9:27 Messiah. What is your "biblical foundation" for this.

Not trying to be argumentative, just curious as to how you arrived at this interpretation of this verse?

 

Future New Covenant?

How is it that if the blessings of the New Covenant are yet future if Paul said:

2 Cor. 3:6-Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament...

I ask you this: in Ezekial 36, when the promised blessing of the New Covenant is given, aren't the characteristics surprisingly similiar to the cahacteristics of the "new birth"?

Is this perhaps the scripture our Lord said Nicodemus should have needed no explanation about.

Would like to hear your thoughts.

God bless.

 

I see nothing wrong with the desire to use the correct term. That is "caught up to be with the Lord" Translated nor rapture is really accurate
MB

 

Darrell C.,

How is it that if the blessings of the New Covenant are yet future if Paul said:
2 Cor. 3:6-Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament...

Since in my post #96 I addressed the new covenant as that of Heb 8:8, I will attempt the answer in that regard.
First I would say we as Christians are truly able ministers of the new testament just as Paul said; but I fail to see what that has to do with the new covenant of Heb 8:8.

Presently the Church is under the new testament (Heb 9:15-17) and certainly still under the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that was the spiritual promise because the Abrahamic Covenant is an everlasting covenant conditioned upon nothing. (Heb 8:6 along with Gal 3:18 and Gen 18:18; 22:18)

I ask you this: in Ezekial 36, when the promised blessing of the New Covenant is given, aren't the characteristics surprisingly similiar to the cahacteristics of the "new birth"?

I am sorry, but I searched Eze 36 and cannot find the verses that might be indicating what you are. Could you be more specific?

I would refer to the description of the new covenant of Heb 8:8 found in Jer 31:31ff.

Jeremiah 31:31-37 (King James Version)
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

I see very little similarity to the above and being ministers of the new testament.
Christians are called to spread the gospel; but in vs. 34 it says everyone will know the Lord, and in Zec 13:3 there even appears to be a penalty involved for those who do spread the message.

The idea that the Church has somehow replaced Israel as the recipient of the OT promises God made to Israel and therefore the organization to which the new covenant of Heb 8:8 applies is in my opinion a false doctrine.

This idea is know as replacement theology. It began a life of its own with Origen and has been propagated through time mainly by the Catholic church.
It is a reverting to a works based salvation which Paul spoke of in Gal 1:6-7 and 2Tim 1:15.
God, Himself, said in the passages above (35-37) that the sun, moon, and stars would pass away before Israel would cease to be a nation before His eyes.

Therefore, IMO, to replace the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the Body of Christ and place it under the New Covenant of Heb 8:8 is to go against the Word of God.