About that 70ad "Rapture"

Carson admitted that this is not a Catholic teaching.

You win.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I commend you, Bob. God bless,

Grant

 

When the "details" mean that what I thought was true "aint" - I would rather "Get it over with".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry LaRae you are in error in the belief of Preterist... A true preterist believes ALL of Revelation is passed but a partial preterist believes that the white throne judgement is still to come and a resurrection of the dead. While eschatology is a great study and will have you burning the candle at both ends it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans... Also it is the reason for the starting of many religions who duped the masses in to believing they had the answers... It's sad as we as sheep will follow anything... Believing any prophecy to come along... I will wait till Jesus Comes and he will come when he not we are ready!... Brother Glen

[ June 18, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Think about it. If the rapture of the church took place in 70 A.D., and I say this most respectfully before the Lord, it sure is taking Him a long time to bring us to the end of the world and to the judgment of the just and unjust. Two thousand year and waiting . . .

 

Indeed. Two thousand years and waiting when our Lord said that He was coming "quickly" "soon" and that His coming was "at hand". That is not the language of a two thousand year wait, especially in the tense of the Greek.

There is no such thing as a "rapture". It is a term invented in the 19th century to fit a dogma began by a wee Scottish lassie who had too many pickles with ice cream before going to bed.

The other problem you have is that there are 4 Greek words which have been MISTRANSLATED in the KJV as "world". Bad form.

In Matthew 24, for instance, when the apostles ask about the coming end of the "world", the Greek word there is "aion". Now if you get any PROTESTANT BIBLE DICTIONARY OR CONCORDANCEand look up the word "aion", it does not mean "world" in the sense that Premillenialists place upon it.

It means AGE. The apostles were asking not about the ball of earth we live upon, but about the Jewish age.

That age came to end officially in AD 70. According to the Lord, in the parable of the fig tree, Israel was given "one more chance" (let me dig about and dung it yet this year, and then if it bears not fruit....) to repent of their rejection of their Messiah. The period between AD 30 and AD 70 was a testing period, beginning with our Lord's open and public ministry. The Jews missed it all, crucified the Lord, and persecuted the Church. And ultimately, they brought upon themselves the covenantal curses found in Deut. 28, right down to the promise that women would eat their own children. (Read Josephius' account of the Jewish Civil War of AD 70 to see this).

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

The most learned and spiritual theologians of our day believe in dispensationalism and soon return of the Lord for His church. [I Thess. 4:17] You name it whatever you want, brother; He is still coming for only 'born again Christians.' [John 3:3] You do know, don't you, that they are the only Christians?

 

Brother Ray --

Your use of the term "born again Christian" is both redundant and, IMHO, silly. ALL those who are Christians are so because they have submitted to the Sacrament of baptism, have been placed in Christ (Rom. 6:3 and Gal. 3: 27) and are members of the kingdom of God through covenant. They have been born again through the waters of regeneration (Titus 3:5) and are part of the Body of Christ.

The idea of so called "born again Christian" is an invention of Evangelicalism which is not supported by Scripture. You can just say "Christian", for every Christian is born again.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,


Brother Ed

 

"Too many pickles with ice cream".

Wow. So much for any future "hateful baptist" posts. How can you complain about how we speak out on the harlot of Rome when you post garbage like this ? The Bible does support a pre-trib rapture, no matter when us lowly humans figured it out. And this kind of nonsense only makes me hold onto it harder.

And yet, when we confront the Cat's on how their doctrines aren't supported in scripture, we get called bigots.

I'm really disappointed, and yet, not suprised.

Bigot Curtis, who really does love the Lord, and prays for sinners, and hates the RCC.

 

Brother Ed,

Many of us at times use this term 'born again Christian,' because Jesus demands this experience and relationship to Him. [John 3:3] Some of us have a tendency to be sheep inspectors. Just making sure everyone we contact about this is really in His fold.

Appreciate your thoughts . . .

 

Brother Curtis,

You sure do get to your points.

As you have come to know, most of the O.T. prophecies mean nothing without finally coming to a Pre-Millennial view of Scripture. Otherwise, one comes up with a lot of poetic verses that mean nearly nothing.

When Christ takes His people home and the Great Tribulation comes hopefully, many who have revered and adored the one on the Papal chair will see that they have been a part of a quasi-apostate church. But, the 'woman of scarlet,' and the ecclesiastical system of Revelation seventeen will still be offering his homilies from the opened window. Let's only hope that those who are left behind will not take the 'mark of the beast' from the 'prince of darkness,' the antichrist.

 

Brother Curtis --

And I am discouraged in YOU that you do not understand the difference between "hate speech" ("Whore of Rome" "Apostates" "Idol Worshippers" etc.) and a little good natured joshing about a girl who made up a doctrine out of thin air which had never been known before. It is kidding around to suggest that perhaps she had too many pickles and ice cream before she had her "vision" in which premillenialism was birthed.

BELIEVE ME -- IF I had wanted to be anywhere near as hateful to Mary McDonald as some of the posts we Catholics have to endure on this forum, you would have had to censor what I had said!!!

Now give it a rest, okay?

Brother Ed

PS

[ June 23, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

(Catholic Convert)

Get my drift? The Bible supports whatever people want it to support.
You want it to support premillenialism. Fine. You have that right. But 18
centuries of men who were far brighter than both you and I together saw
nothing of the sort in the Scriptures.

Brighter or more inspired?
Weren't those 18 centuries of men just fallen sinners like us all
who were in need of salvation...? Could they not possibly have
misrepresented scripture/thoughts/feelings too and gotten the wrong
belief into being...?

Were they said to be inspired by God?
It all hinges on Matt 16-18 again and that's pretty shaky ground
for establishing a church on.

 

Singer --

Actually, it more rests upon one's interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 - 19, i.e., what exactly constitutes the Church?

The Protestant paradigm denies that the Church is a physical entity upon the earth, stating that it is instead "the Body made up off all "true believers" in Christ" and is "spiritual" (unseen) in nature.

This, of course, creates MASSIVE exegetical problems with a number of verses in the Scriptures. For instance:

Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Now if the Church has no visible authority on earth and no set and specific leader who can be seen and heard speaking, then how does one "hear" the Church when certain issues come up requiring a dogmatic definition so that Christians may be obedient to the voice of the Lord?

For instance, the issue of baptism. WHO speaks for the Lord on the earth? The Baptists, who say it is not necessary for salvation, but only for obedience. The Presbyterians, who state that it is a means of God's grace and a sign of the grace of the election to salvation that God may or may not give to the child baptized. How about certain Fundamentalists who claim it is not necessary at all, period? Since the Church is invisible, how do we KNOW which of these groups is speaking INFALLIBILY and is being INFALLIBILY LED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? After all, if salvation IS really about salvation, this is no small matter indeed!!

What about the so called "rapture" of the Church? How many people have thought that their particular branch spoke for God and sold everything they had because someone told them that Jesus was coming in November of 1988 and it would be all over? A lot of people wound up with egg on their face over that one (and many, many other such "prophecies").

Or what of this verse:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How can an "invisible church" be the pillar and ground of the truth"? How do I determine what truth is among the literally HUNDREDS of competing Protestant denominations if each one of them is claiming to represent the invisible "true church" and the invisible and unseen God?

How is the invisible church a "light upon a hill" if you cannot see it?

And for folks like you, who eschew ANY kind of denomination whatsoever, how do I trust that YOU have the imprimateur of infallible teaching upon your interpretation of the Bible? Why should I follow what you say regarding the Scriptures?

I hope you see that far from being problematic, the understanding of an earthly Church, even with all of its administrative errors and moral failings of some of its leaders, still offers us a far better and more clear understanding of truth than trying to figure out an "invisible" Church.

It is indeed a shame that scandals in the Church, both present and past, have created in some a considerable doubt of the Church and Her teachings, but then again, I do not find in Scripture that God told the pagans that they could ignore the kingdom nation when it was being run by the Jews and was having scandals such as King David's adultery. God bids us look past the failures of the people of God to the truth which God places in the Church.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

CatholicConvert,

I am not a Roman Catholic and I believe in the Body of Christ on earth. I believe in a spiritual Kingdom of God in the lives of believers here. I also believe a man or a woman is a member of the true church on this earth if they believe that Jesus is Divine and they have received Him into their hearts and lives. Hopefully the Lord will overlook some of the other things that Christians believe. Do I hear an Amen?

 

Actually, it more rests upon one's interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 - 19,
i.e., what exactly constitutes the Church?

That is definitely a tumultuous problem (to identify what ''church'' means).

A Catholic poster on another board had this to say:

"This is one reason why I believe that the "church" Jesus
established (which existed BEFORE the Bible) and promised
divine guidance (Jn 16:13, Mt 28:20, Jn 14:26) was the one which
later become known as the Catholic Church with a capital "C". "

We need to address this on a thread of its own, perhaps.

Reading references:
http://www.letusreason.org/Cult12.htm

 

Singer --

A tumultuous problem!! Hey, I like that wording!! Indeed. Very nettlesome for many, isn't it?

I went to the website you linked up to. I want to thank you. More ammunition for me as proof that in the non catholic world there is nothing but chaos and confusion. Interesting all those people who are claiming to be the "one true church." I especially like that one "The Hawaii Fellowship of the Universal Church" with Miiiiiissss Velma. What a hoot!!

Okay. I don't know if'n we needs a new thread. Let's just see where this one goes.

When I was considering the Catholic Faith from a distance, there were many things which I had to synthesize as a Protestant. One of the first to come to mind was the very issue of how the covenantal kingdom is made up. In other words, what is it, how does one get into it, where is it, and how do I know?

One of the clues which began leading me in a certain direction was found in Hebrews:

Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Now the interesting thing is that St. Paul is quoting Psalm 22:22. This immediately told me that God had something called "the church" before the time of the New Testament. It is known in Greek as the "eklessia" or "the gathering". The Church then appeared to me to be not only in the NT, but in the OT as well.

By noticing the parallels between the services and hierarchy of the OT assembly, it seemed to me that the NT assembly was a continuation of the OT assembly. IF this was true, then there should be something in the NT which pointed to the continuation of the physical and earthly assembly.

I found indication in Matthew 21: 33-46 where Jesus talks about the kingdom of God and shows that the OT Jewish nation was identified with the kingdom of God as the husbandmen. He then goes on to state that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation, a "new nation" which would bring forth fruits unto God. As I studied the parable, I noted that while the administrators would be changed, the essential makeup of the vineyard itself was not mentioned. Nothing was said that would indicate that the vineyard would become of a different kind of ground or be administered in a different method than before. I feel this points to the continuation of the earthly kingdom, but with the ordinances which pointed to Christ being replaced by Sacraments which are done in fulfillment and through His very presence in them.

I then also noted a parallelism between 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:6.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

As St. Peter speaks to the Church, notice the similarities, which they as Jewish converts of the first century could not help to note. "Holy nation" "royal priesthood" I am sure this was the subject of much discussion in those days.

Furthermore, all the believers of the first century continued to attend temple services until they were driven out. They did not see that they had to set up another religion, but that they were the continuation and fulfillment of that which they had been raised in.

All this pointed me to the establishment of the church on earth as the kingdom of God taking place of the Jewish nation.

Well, that's a good start. I'll wait for your response.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,


Brother Ed

 

Ed, I disagree. I see more hate directed at Baptists, from Catholics, than the other way around. Sometimes it's worded better, but it's still hate.

And also, I refuse to believe that there were no "pre-tribbers" before said ice cream insipration. They were probably kept underground for a few hundred years, but I'm sure they were around.

Also, in this post....

He then goes on to state that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation, a "new nation" which would bring forth fruits unto God.

I know I over-simplifying, but are you saying God gave Rome the kingdom ?

Also this....

By noticing the parallels between the services and hierarchy of the OT assembly, it seemed to me that the NT assembly was a continuation of the OT assembly. IF this was true, then there should be something in the NT which pointed to the continuation of the physical and earthly assembly.

What say ye of the temple curtian being torn ? (I think we're off subject enough by now...)

 

I also believe a man or a woman is a member of the true church on
this earth if they believe that Jesus is Divine and they have received
Him into their hearts and lives. Hopefully the Lord will overlook some
of the other things that Christians believe.
Do I hear an Amen? Amen, Ray

What say ye of the temple curtian being torn ? Amen, Bro, Curtis
(Yeah...like whatever happened to the "Whosoever Will" ?)
Is this why they called the reign of Romanism via the Catholic Church....
the DARK AGES ??


"The Church then appeared to me to be not only in the NT, but in
the OT as well"..... What a hoot!! (Sorry this is out of context Ed, but
yeah.....This is a hoot too...Amen to that !!

I'll get back to ya, Ed.

Saved in Spite of the Ex-Virgin,

Singer