The rapture

Paul was writing what he'd been told by Jesus or the Holy Spirit, in 1 Cor. 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

And in 1 Thess.4: 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Not to mention the previously-posted Rev. 3:10.

Now, that's positive, undeniable SCRIPTURAL evidence of a coming rapture.

When Jesus said "When you", He meant those who will actually see it. Obviously, it hasn't yet happened. Same for paul's "we who are still alive". Obviously, none of that "we" are now alive on earth.

With all due respect, all preterism, both full & partial, relies on trying to reduce certain Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic" status, a hippo that won't fly, a pig that won't roller-skate. After Jesus cuts the trib short, there'll be one more cosmic event immediately afterward, during which He will return. I trust you're several notches above the idiots who try to make an issue over "falling stars".

SCRIPTURE says there WILL be an event we now call the rapture. deny all you want, but I believe Scripture itself over anyone who tries to invent new meanings for certain passages.

 

I agree that the 2nd Coming has not happened yet. However, Jesus "came" in judgement of Israel in AD 70. See the last few paragraphs of my reply to Roby (# 80).

Actually, I appreciate the civility of our discussion. I don't take your comments as judgemental at all. No, we are not open to 1,000s of interpretations. However, we do need to understand how to interpret the Bible, which means we have to recognize how to interpret the various types of literature within the Bible. To interpret Scripture literally is to interpret it "sensus literalis" - according to the sense of the literature. Obviously, we don't interpret historical narratives the same as poetry. We should look for the author's intended meaning, and how the original audience would have understood it. Prophetic Biblical imagery is not to be taken literally at face value. For instance, Micah 1:1-4 is a prophecy of destruction in Israel that was fulfilled in 2 Kings 17:1-5. Yet, the mountains did not literally melt and valleys did not literally split. Jesus used nearly identical language to describe the AD 70 judgement on Jerusalem (Matt 24:27-31). We need to apply critical thinking, not just read at the surface level or blindly follow whatever you've always been taught. Definitely avoid falling into the mentality that prophesies need to be interpreted with a "wooden" literalism. That leads to failing to understanding what God is telling us.

 

1 Cor 15 is about the resurrection of believers, not the rapture.
1 Thess 4 is also about the resurrection, not the rapture. Note that Paul is talking about a "hope". This hope that we have is the raising of those who are in Christ. Being "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" is a picture of God's elect being brought into His presence in the Holy of Holies.

Again, you do not have positive, undeniable Scriptural evidence of a man-made doctrine.

No sir, "you" meant just what it normally means - His original audience. You cannot twist the meaning of Christ's words to fit your view. While I appreciate that both of us recognize that we are a couple of intelligent guys, we do not agree about the symbolism of prophetic cosmic events. Prophesies use symbolic language all throughout Scripture, so there's no reason to apply a wooden literalism to Revelation.

 

With all due respect...
I provided SCRIPTURAL proof of the rapture. The righteous dead will be called from paradise then, & will be joined in the air by the living righteous, to meet Jesus in the air. That's what Paul plainly wrote.

And Paul wrote, "WE, who are still alive..." Obviously, the "we" was none of those still living at that time. Paul was executed by Nero. And those who first read his letter are all dead now.

Same with what Jesus said. None of those then living saw those events, and neither has anyone else, as they HAVEN'T YET HAPPENED ! The temple was destroyed without any AOD having occurred in it. Thus, it'll occur in the new temple the Jews will build in Jerusalem.

As I said, reducing Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic" status unless they're CLEARLY so, such as Jesus saying He was bread, is a pig that doesn't roller-skate. Try BELIEVING scripture as written insteada the pret quax who've led you astray. I, & others, are here to help. We realize people sometimes get into thrall to false doctrines, but any of them can be chucked thru the HOLY SPIRIT'S power. Just ask Him to teach you.

 

With the same respect, Brother, what you provided was Scriptural passages and your view of what those passages mean. The interpretation that I offered is not negated with the fact that Paul was executed, as the subject was the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus warned His disciples that when they see the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place that it was time to flee to the mountains. Earlier, you stated that the "flee to the mountains" warning applied to the "days of vengeance", which you agree did happen in AD 70. You are claiming both a past and a future fulfillment for the AOD. Which is it? By comparing Luke 21:20-21 and Matthew 24:15-18, we can nail down the time when the AOD was to appear. Luke tells us "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in the midst of the city depart".

First Century Jewish Christians were familiar with apocalyptic language and they never took it literally. Jesus, Paul, and John address these same 1st Century men, so it is only natural they used the same type of language. To switch from symbolic to "literal" language would involve a big paradigm shift. Jesus and the Biblical writers would have had to explain that the events described in the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, etc. were "literal" or they would leave their readers totally confused. If I was not absolutely convinced of the truth of these claims, I would not be so adamant about it. I had been following Christ for nearly 30 years before I realized that I had been holding onto a lie. The false "Rapture" and "End Times" doctrines have deceived a lot of Christians. If you would drop your "affirmation bias", you might be able to see the truth behind these views.

 

yes, the righteous dead will be resurrected at the rapture.

The AOD didn't occur then. The desolation in Luke was not the AOD, but the desolation(destruction) of Jerusalem.
The AOD will be when the antichrist sets up a statue of himself in the temple the Jews will build in Jerusalem, which the FP will cause to speak by Satan's power, as his boss sits in the temple & declares himself God. That event did NOT occur in the old temple before it was destroyed.

The OD was made to Jesus' disciples & not read by anyone else til a good while later. His disciples had asked Him some questions, & He answered them directly & literally.

"Apocalyptic language", etc. is the pret method for trying to get by the FACT that the events they SAY happened, have NOT yet happened. They're too in thrall to their false doctrine to admit it's false & drop it. That thralldom to that false doctrine makes them forget what a SIN it is to try to change, or add new meanings to God's word.

And again-If the trib has already occurred, WHERE'S JESUS????? He said He'd return IMMEDIATELY AFTER the trib. Neither the occurrence of the trib nor the cosmic event following it are found in history.

And being adamant about something doesn't mean one is CORRECT. Many Japanese were adamant that the path to the best afterlife was to die in battle for their Emperor. They were so adamant that they stayed in pillboxes, knowing they were gonna be cooked with a flamethrower, or that they flew a plane to crash into an enemy ship. WERE THEY CORRECT ?

 

Sigh.... You know we are not going to agree. As Doris Day sang so well, "Que Sera, Sera".

Matthew 24:15-16 puts the AOD right before the warning to flee to the mountains. Now you are arguing against what Jesus tells us in plain language. The scenario you paint is just a "futurist" fantasy that mixes up prophetic events. The Roman army desolated the temple.

Jesus answered the disciples very directly. He quoted Isaiah 13:10 with His answer, and that ancient prophecy used symbolic language. Jesus did not change the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy.

My point was not that just being adamant means you are correct. Otherwise, I would have to say that you are correct based on how adamant you are to the futurist view. To quote Martin Luther, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God."

Unless you have a new argument, I think we have just about beaten this horse to death.

 

@robycop3,
No; I'm arguing against the pret TIMING. The event WILL occur; it hasn't YET occurred. And no AOD occurred before the temple was destroyed. Thus, it'll occur in the new temple the Jews will build in Jerusalem.

Your argument against Preterist timing is an argument against the plain words of Jesus.

There's NO valid reason to not believe Him literally.
Precisely my point - I am taking Him literally.

As I said earlier, it's SO EASY to prove preterism false. Any 10th-grader with a Bible & a world history textbook can do it.
And Scripture PROVES there'll be an event we call the rapture.
Since neither of us are offering any new arguments, I suggest we just agree to disagree. Good day, sir.

 

Nothin' personal, but OF COURSE we disagree, and we will, long as you advocate the false pret myth. The prophesied eschatological events prets SAY have already happened, simply HAVE NOT YET HAPPENED, and there's simply no getting around that FACT.

And, back to the theme of this thread-I posted plain Scripture that shows the event we call the rapture WILL happen.

Here it is again:
1 Cor. 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

And in 1 Thess.4: 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Not to mention the previously-posted Rev. 3:10.

 

Likewise, nothing personal. To turn your post around, as long as you advocate the false "rapture / futurist" myth, of course we will disagree. The main point of each of our views has to do with the timing. Repeating your "proof passages" and stating your views of what they mean doesn't change anything. There doesn't seem to be any point to continue our discussion, as we are just going around the same points over and over. Shall we just draw a truce and agree to disagree?

 

Actually preterist attempt to force Scripture with a modern interpretation onto first century events.

The plain words of Jesus was a harvest of the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares. Jesus mentioned nothing about a government, an AC, or even Satan recking havoc in the first century.

Revelations is not a history lesson of the first century. Nor does the first century cover a harvest at the end of the church age by any definition of the word harvest.

 

Sure, but I posted **SCRIPTURAL PROOF** for the rapture doctrine, while you posted man's imagination & guesswork for your pret view.

 

While I don't agree with much of your stuff in other posts, I do agree that the prophesied eschatological events have simply not happened yet.

 

Preterism is a valid eschatological view that interprets the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, Revelation, etc with a past fulfillment based on history. If anything, "futurists" put their view into prophecy, when they point to past events.

The sheep and goats is the Great White Throne Judgement.
There is no such thing as the "church age". That is just Dispensational doctrine.

 

Or so you keep trying to tell me.

 

Oh, REALLY??????
Then, how come prets can't SHOW us that history ?

Actually, we simply remind prets about that those parohecies say, & ask for **PROOF** of their past fulfillment.

Actually, it's another name for the "New Covenant age", which we're in right now.

Preterism is just another man-made false doctrine, popularized by some jeezits who were trying to protect their pope from being labeled the antichrist. It's all phony as a volleyball mallet.

 

And will KEEP telling you long as you keep denying it without proof.

 

We preterists do show you the history. Your problem is that you deny that what we show you is fulfillment of prophecy. You remind me of an owl - the more light you shine on them, the less you see. No matter how much PROOF we show you, you will say that we haven't proven anything because you simply refuse to see it.

 

The harvest is about those alive. Jesus does not resurrect the dead and separate them into groups.

Yet the church is the current Steward. Are you going to say the OT Law (Covenant) as given by Moses, was never in effect as Steward of the vineyard?

We are talking about those who spiritually represent God on earth. The Law and Temple was a single physical entity. The church is not. Don’t like the word "age"? There is not much to define the church with. If one cannot attach a time frame, how can one define it with a hierarchy or denomination attribute? The church really has nothing to do with doctrine nor some democratic consensus on beliefs. If calling this time period and the word "age" is just some doctrinal excuse and wrong, do you not hold to any corporate doctrinal church structure?

The church is just a group of individuals. Fellowship is what creates doctrine and denominational differences.