I Want To Be Left Behind

[Vic C.]

People, please discuss the issue at hand and leave the personal issues out of the thread. Thanks. :-?

Also, Ben, the word rapture IS deried from the Latin word raeptius or rapio. Check out the Vulgate translation please. Harpazo is it's Greek equivalent.

 

[BenJasher]

Vic,

I am fully apprised of the Latin origin of the word Rapture. I have been for probably longer than some on this board arguing with me have been alive.

I will repeat what I said earlier, because it is true and it has good shock value:

The word Rapture has more in common with Rape than scripture.

But let's make sure of our research. The word used in 1 Thess 4:17 (harpazo) is also used in Acts 23 to describe Paul's arrest. So, are we going to be "snatched away" in the Rapture, or are we going to be "arrested"?

Also consider:

The other text upon which a rapture is based is Luke 17:34-35 (which is parallel Matt. 24:40-41). In English we often express the direction of a verb by adding an adverb to it. Thus we say “take in, â€Âtake up,†take down†"take away.†In Greek the directional aspect of a verb instead is often expressed as a prefix to the verb. For example, in these verses the word to “take†is the Greek word “paralambano†whose primary meaning is to “take to oneself.†If the writer had wished to express the direction “up†he would have place the prefix “ana..†to “lambano". He did not. He added the prefix “para.â€Â

Did any of that make sense to anyone? You have to read that with your thinking cap on to get the full importance of what was said. There is no indication in these verses of being "taken up." But there is a very clear indication of being "received." Not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

Also, something else the "scholars" don't tell you when the Rapture is discussed:

...the oldest known reference to a great tribulation to come and a possible escape from it is contained in The Shepherd of Hermes manuscript dated to the second century. Although much of what is recorded in this text does not agree with the teachings of the scripture, and is of no doctrinal value, it nonetheless makes mention of a vision the “shepherd†had of a giant raging bull, that he was able to escape harm from by relying on God for protection. The next vision encountered was that of a beautiful maiden, identified by the shepherd as the church. She identifies the bull as the great tribulation to come, and tells him he escaped it by putting his trust in God. She then charges him to go tell all other believers they can do the same of the coming tribulation but only if they also put full faith in the Lord.

For the sake of citing my references, I am quoting from Answers.com on the word Harpazo. A huge volume of interesting reading on this subject.

If you look closely at the history of this teaching, from it's first appearance at about 182 A.D., to it's re-appearance in the 800's, to Margaret McDonald in 1861 and Darby, you will see that it has very dubious origins.

Any other doctrine would be rejected out of hand by any reasonable scholar with no more scriptural backing, or historical pedigree.

 

[Zero Link]

1 Thess: 4, 17 - 18 says:

17After 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. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

As known as, the rapture. Its mentioned other times in the bible. I truely don't see how you can deny it.

Now when the rapture is coming, that would be a good topic but denying the rapture, well its proof that there is a rapture.

 

[Vic C.]

Also, we can expect to experience tragic loss as the Rapture unfolds. Lot's wife had a stroke, which is what the Hebrew idiom, "turned to stone" means.

That's interesting Ben, but I think there is a difference between turning to stone and turning into a pillar of salt. :wink:

I am fully apprised of the Latin origin of the word Rapture. I have been for probably longer than some on this board arguing with me have been alive.

Hey, I know some who are older than I (pushing 50) who act like morons, so age is not always a gauge for wisdom or knowledge. :-D

All kidding aside, I said what I said because of this:

Actually my self anointed intellectual friend, the word Rapture isn't even in the Latin. The word Rapture is a contrived word, spoon fed to those who don't know better, causing them to accept the false notion that it is scripture

But let's make sure of our research. The word used in 1 Thess 4:17 (harpazo) is also used in Acts 23 to describe Paul's arrest. So, are we going to be "snatched away" in the Rapture, or are we going to be "arrested."

A worthy point, so which one is it, in the name of consistancy? You alreaty professed at the beginning of this thread that you have read some of what I have posted and you posted the link to wavy's thread, so you probably already have a decent idea what it is I believe... and a "pre tribulation" harpazo is not what I believe. I have also said in the past that holding a prewrath belief does not confine me to any seven year "tribulation" period.

 

[BenJasher]

A worthy point, so which one is it, in the name of consistancy? You alreaty professed at the beginning of this thread that you have read some of what I have posted and you posted the link to wavy's thread, so you probably already have a decent idea what it is I believe... and a "pre tribulation" harpazo is not what I believe. I have also said in the past that holding a prewrath belief does not confine me to any seven year "tribulation" period.

The thing is Vic, that like it or not, true scholarship does not begin until you question what you think you know. I am absolutely and unshakably convinced that the Rapture is a delusion. I went through my question and answer period on this subject over twenty years ago.

And my focus here has been to point out some of the inconsistencies and fallacies of this teaching, in order to make people ask questions about this teaching.

I have even said things to bait people who possess a scholarly knowledge of the Rapture teaching to call me on. Nobody took the bait. I thought surely someone will jump on it. But Nope.

The big difference between the Rapture and the historicist/preterist view is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis. IMHO. (I could say more on that note, but I'll stop there.) ;-)

As known as, the rapture. Its mentioned other times in the bible. I truely don't see how you can deny it.

Now when the rapture is coming, that would be a good topic but denying the rapture, well its proof that there is a rapture.

I can deny the existence of a Rapture because I am absolutely and unshakably convinced of it's falsehood.

1Thess 4:17-18 is not proof of the scriptural validity of a Rapture. And neither is 1Corinthians 15:51-57. Take another look at those verses. This time look at them without your "Rapture glasses" on. I don't mean that disrespectfully. And once you see that there is no Rapture in those verses, the other Rapture scriptures become less of an obstacle to seeing the truth.

 

[BenJasher]

Q-Didn't God always take His believers out of the way before he poured out His wrath on the unjust? After all, He took out Noah and his family before the flood, He removed Lot before He destroyed Sodom and took the Israelites out of harm's way before He defeated the armies of Pharaoh. So then the Church will be raptured before the tribulation period, since the tribulation is Gods' wrath.

This question is both typical and stereotypical of the confusion surrounding the Rapture. These examples from the Old Testament do not lend their support to, nor do they establish precedent for a Rapture.

Noah and his family went through the flood. They were here (or there, depending) the whole time. They didn't go anywhere.

The story is the same in all the other examples. Nobody goes anywhere in a way that supports a Rapture event.

On the other hand, these same stories, all, with no exception clearly show that our God is ready, willing and able to defend, protect and provide for us in the worst of times and in the most extreme circumstances.

Another point I would like to make about this question: There seems to be a recurrent theme about God's wrath on the earth. This needs to be looked at more closely.

Was or was not Jesus a propitiation for sin? (The word propitiation means an appeasement of anger.) We all without hesitation would answer yes to that question. But the same scripture that tells us that Jesus was the propitiation for sin, tells us that this appeasement applies not only to believers, but to the whole world.

If God's anger for sin has been appeased, and this includes the sins of the whole world, then where does this "wrath of God" come from? What form does it take? Why is it being poured out? What does He hope to accomplish by all this?

God is no longer angry at anyone, else John lied to us. So what gives with all the wrath stuff?

 

[BenJasher]

I don't think the verses you have chosen are very convincing.

Have you read through all that has been said on this subject? If so,have you considered the evidence presented? Or did you just glance over it without thinking about what someone thought was important enough to put into words?

At the moment, there are six separate threads on this subject. Read through all of them and then tell me you are not convinced.

Besides, I am only getting started. I said I would post in small bites. I am not posting the entire list of scriptures at one time. There are two reasons for this:
1) Small bites are more easily digested.
2) It keeps the posts short so people will read them.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For 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. 17After 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.

This can not be the second coming, then Jesus comes to where we are instead of taking us to where He is

Its Greek equivalent is harpazo, which is found in the Greek text of 1 Thes. 4:17. When they're translated into English, both words mean "to be caught up, or snatched away." Harpazo, the word Paul actually used, comes from roots that mean, "to raise from the ground" and" take for oneself" and hints that the Lord's eagerly claiming us for Himself.

Your commentary on 1 Thess 4:17 is confusing to me. You mentioned "both words," but only spoke on Harpazo. What is the other word? There isn't enough information there for me to agree or disagree with.

1 Cor 15:51-52
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in 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.

Both Matt. 24:31 (they'll gather His elect from one end of the heavens to the other) and Rev. 17:14 (with Him will be His called, chosen, and faithful followers) say that we'll be with the Lord when He returns, this has to happen sometime before the 2nd Coming. And it can't be just the resurrected believers coming back with Him because the Rapture passages above say that we'll be changed at the same time as the dead are raised.

see http://www.raptureready.com/soap/rapture-defend.html for full text

For one thing, the series of events that took place on The Day of Pentecost was the Second Coming of Christ.

This is an example of what I have said several times about the Rapture Theory misusing scriptures that have nothing to do with the Rapture to support itself. What you are claiming to be Rapture scriptures are not. These scriptures are speaking to us of the Manifestation of The Sons of God. They have nothing to do with a Rapture.

 

[dancing queen]

You think Pentecost was the second coming? How, why?

How does this fit with the verse that says Christ would return in the same way He left?

 

[BenJasher]

DQ;

How did He go? How is He to return? We are to see Him come again in like manner as we have seen Him leave. But those words were not spoken to us, nor for our benefit. They were spoken to the men standing around the top of that hillside the day He was taken up, and for their benefit. Those words were emphatically fulfilled 50 days later on the day of Pentecost.

How did we (actually they) see Him go? They saw Him go into the clouds. The angels standing there asked them why they were gazing into heaven. Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? Today, men are still looking to the sky for Him to return. And they will be disappointed until they learn to turn their eyes in another direction looking for His appearing.

The Apostle Paul understood this. In Colossians, he tells us that Christ in you is the glorious hope that we are looking for. Even that is not some far off someday kind of prophecy. It was then and still is today a statement of present fact.

Jesus was taken up into clouds. And He is to appear in clouds again. But Clouds are symbolic of the righteous Elect, who are witnesses to the rest of the world. If we allow the scriptures to comment on themselves, we end up with something other than the man-made humanistic stuff people like John Hagee and Tim LaHaye try to spoon feed the Body of Christ. Who are you going to place your trust in?

Either the outpouring on the Day of Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, or Peter did not know what he was talking about as he spoke under the unction of the Holy Spirit that day. In Joel's prophecy, and even Peter quotes this part, the Holy Spirit was then being poured out on all flesh.

It almost sounds too simple for it to be true. But it is simple, and true. The scriptures don't hand us some complicated, convoluted plan that noone really understands. God is not the author of confusion; man perhaps, but not God. If your study of eschatology leaves you confused, who's to blame?

So now we have the Holy Spirit poured out on all flesh. And I have to struggle with that sometimes, especially when I look to myself to see how I'm doing. Nor is it wise for us to look to someone else to see anything other than Him, believer or not. If we see anything other than our Redeemer in others, we need our vision adjusted. We cannot say the scriptures are wrong because our vision doesn't allow us to see as we should.

If these things be true, it means that there are some things that we only think we understand. If these things be not true, we are lost with no means of finding our way out of this mess. Either the Scripture is right, and faithfully interprets itself, or not. If not, let's just throw the whole thing out the window. It's no use to us if these things be not true. God is not the author of confusion.

From my standpoint, the source of your confusion is that you, like every other Rapturian I have ever met, have the Second Coming confused completely with the Manifestation of the Sons of God. The two are quite different, and are fulfilled on different ends of the age we live in.

People keep looking for His Second Coming, but instead, they should be eagerly anticipating the Manifestation of the Sons of God. Religious people of His day had it wrong also. They were looking for a Lion, they got a Lamb. Take your eyes off the sky and look your brother in the eye. That is where you will find Jesus.

 

[lecoop]

I guess BenJasher can fly! For the rest of the believers, we will have to be "raptured" or caught up.

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.

Sorry, Ben, but we meet Jesus "in the air." What? Will we take airplanes? No, the bible says we will be caught up. Where? In the air, and in the clouds.

Now, if you can explain how we, the church, can get up into the air, and up in the clouds, without being "caught up," please try. Oh! Perhaps it is a say of deep fog, where a cloud is on the ground!!! : -))) NOT!

Perhaps you did not notice that John saw the body of christ, the church universal, IN HEAVEN in REvelation chapter 7, just before the 70th week and say of the Lord start? It is the great crowd, without number.

Coop

 

[BenJasher]

Coop,
I notice you are from Tulsa. We're practically neighbors. But all of this neighborliness aside, if all you can do is ridicule what I have to say, you ain't got much to say. If however, you have real evidence, let's have it.

I bet you aren't even aware that in other parts of the christian world, outside of the United States, the rapture is ridiculed as nonsense. It is almost as though the Rapture is an exclusively American arrogance.

The following is excerpted from an article by British Theologian N.T. Wright You can read it here

The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus  especially with distorted interpretations of it  continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture†in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.†This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.

I underlined certain parts for your reading pleasure. In another part of this same article, he articulates the answer to the question you asked in unbelief about 1Thess 4. I will do you the honor of quoting it here for you. Please read it and tell me what you think.

Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming†or “appearing,†those who are still alive will be “changed†or “transformed†so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imageryâ€â€from biblical and political sourcesâ€â€to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High†(that is, the “one like a son of manâ€Â) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air†should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.

Emphasis mine

 

[lecoop]

Coop,
I notice you are from Tulsa. We're practically neighbors. But all of this neighborliness aside, if all you can do is ridicule what I have to say, you ain't got much to say. If however, you have real evidence, let's have it.

I bet you aren't even aware that in other parts of the christian world, outside of the United States, the rapture is ridiculed as nonsense. It is almost as though the Rapture is an exclusively American arrogance.

The following is excerpted from an article by British Theologian N.T. Wright You can read it here
Emphasis mine

Sorry, but I am not interested in what anyone anywhere else thinks about the rapture; rather, I am interested in what the author, the Holy Spirit, meant when the writers, such as Paul, wrote, inspired by Him.

So we are neighbors? where are you living? Do I have real evidence? I mentioned some scriptures, such as the great crowd in Rev.7. Perhaps we could discuss that? Or the matter of the meeting in the air? Sorry, but we cannot fly! At least, not until we get our resurrection bodies. : -)) Did you not read that Jesus was the firstborn? Of course this tells us that there will be a second born, a third born, etc. What does this mean? It means that God plans on all of us getting a resurrection body, such as Jesus had, when He walked right through a wall, and into the locked upper room!

My comment about 1 Thess 4 was not in unbelief. I am fully convinced that He is coming to get us, and take us to our mansions in the sky. It seems to be you that does not believe what is clearly written.

Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth

Who are you to judge whether these are colorful metaphors, or literal descriptions of what is coming? Sure, you can have your opinion, just as I can have mine. But I am only interested in what the author, the HS meant when he had this verse penned.

Since John saw the church in heaven, just before the start of the day of the Lord, we know that Paul was not using "metaphors."


Rev 7
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

No one could come up with a better description of the church of Jesus Christ! John is seeing them in heaven, just after the rapture.

Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air†should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

Again, this is just an opinion, just like we all have. The question is, whose opinion is right? My assumption is just what Jesus said. He was going away, but He would come back and get us, and take us to our mansion. Here is a quote, straight from Jesus:

I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

First, Jesus said he was to go. Where did He go? There is verse after verse that states that He went to stand or sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven, so that is where He went. What was He to do there? He said that He would prepare a place for us. These verses start by saying that in His house [heaven] are many mansions. Therefore, in context, he is preparing mansions for us to live in. There can be no other legitimate interpretation of this. Then He reemphasizes that He will go, and then come again to where He left from: earth. Why will He come? He said to, "receive you unto myself." Next, Jesus said, that where I am... Where am Jesus? AGain, there is verse after verse that says He went to be at the Father's right hand. That is where He am, and that is where He said we would be after He comes to get us. Doesn't this sound like a meeting in the air? It fits perfectly with how Paul describes the rapture. (English intentionally butchered, for emphasis)

Sorry, but the world is not "newly made" at this point in time. After Jesus comes to get us, there will be 7 years of destruction on the earth. This is just basic "prophecy 101."

Therefore, my friend, it is you that writes with unbelief. You just can't believe a literal reading of these verses.

Coop

 

[BenJasher]

Since John saw the church in heaven, just before the start of the day of the Lord, we know that Paul was not using "metaphors."

Oh please! Do some real Bible study for once. And read it in context, not just to take one verse and make a mistaken assumption about it.

As a matter of fact, the fact that John saw what he saw, vindicates that Paul was using metaphors. I hate to break that to you.

Consider the very first verse of Revelations. It tells us plainly that what John saw was by way of symbols:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place, and He sent and signified it by His angel to His bond-servant John.

Look it up, Bible scholar! To signify means to communicate by way of signs and symbols. What John saw was metaphors, symbols and signs, what Paul said was in the same type of language.

Did you not read that Jesus was the firstborn?

Of course! I understand the principle of Jesus being the Firstborn quite well. Was Jesus ever Raptured? No. So what makes you think we are going to be? A delusional preacher from the 1800's? Garbage!

My comment about 1 Thess 4 was not in unbelief. I am fully convinced that He is coming to get us, and take us to our mansions in the sky. It seems to be you that does not believe what is clearly written.

Of course it was in unbelief. If you had any faith in what the scriptures actually say; or rather that you had more faith in the scriptures than some delusional preacher from the 1800's; you also would not believe in a Rapture.

And I say that in the nicest possible way. Good night.

 

[BenJasher]

First, Jesus said he was to go. Where did He go? There is verse after verse that states that He went to stand or sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven, so that is where He went. What was He to do there? He said that He would prepare a place for us. These verses start by saying that in His house [heaven] are many mansions. Therefore, in context, he is preparing mansions for us to live in. There can be no other legitimate interpretation of this.

If you think for the slightest pause that Jesus is pouring cement and putting up walls, building houses for us to live in, then you need to take a second look. That word has more to do with occupations than living arrangements. We will have a full time job waiting for us, not a glittery mansion.

What was He to do there? How about the verse that says that He liveth ever to make intercession for us? How about the verse that says that He is our Advocate for the defense? He only spoke of "preparing a place for us" one time.

 

[dancing queen]

am trying to understand...so here's a quick question.

you said the day of pentecost was the second coming, how does this connect to the fact that revelations is a prophetic book, written after the day of pentecost, but mentions/describes the second coming?

 

[lecoop]

Oh please! Do some real Bible study for once. And read it in context, not just to take one verse and make a mistaken assumption about it.

As a matter of fact, the fact that John saw what he saw, vindicates that Paul was using metaphors. I hate to break that to you.

Consider the very first verse of Revelations. It tells us plainly that what John saw was by way of symbols:

Revelations1:1 wrote:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place, and He sent and signified it by His angel to His bond-servant John.


Look it up, Bible scholar! To signify means to communicate by way of signs and symbols. What John saw was metaphors, symbols and signs, what Paul said was in the same type of language.

Quote:
Did you not read that Jesus was the firstborn?


Of course! I understand the principle of Jesus being the Firstborn quite well. Was Jesus ever Raptured? No. So what makes you think we are going to be? A delusional preacher from the 1800's? Garbage!

Quote:
My comment about 1 Thess 4 was not in unbelief. I am fully convinced that He is coming to get us, and take us to our mansions in the sky. It seems to be you that does not believe what is clearly written.


Of course it was in unbelief. If you had any faith in what the scriptures actually say; or rather that you had more faith in the scriptures than some delusional preacher from the 1800's; you also would not believe in a Rapture.

And I say that in the nicest possible way. Good night.

BenJasher, sometimes I wonder if you shouldn't be driving a truck, rather than posting goofy ideas here.

YOu said

Look it up, Bible scholar! To signify means to communicate by way of signs and symbols. What John saw was metaphors, symbols and signs,

OK, if you insist:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jhn 12:33 1161 This 5124 he said 3004 , signifying 4591 what 4169 death 2288 he should 3195 die 599 .

Weymouth New Testament
12:33 He said this to indicate the kind of death He would die.

Sorry, but here is was plain words - not any kind of symbol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 18:32 That 2443 the saying 3056 of Jesus 2424 might be fulfilled 4137 , which 3739 he spake 2036 , signifying 4591 what 4169 death 2288 he should 3195 die 599 .

Weymouth New Testament
18:32 They said this that the words might be fulfilled in which Jesus predicted the kind of death He was to die.

Once again, this word can be translated as something far different than symbols. Was it "symbols" here? NO, of course not! It was words!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 21:19 1161 This 5124 spake he 2036 , signifying 4591 by what 4169 death 2288 he should glorify 1392 God 2316. And 2532 when he had spoken 2036 this 5124, he saith 3004 unto him 846, Follow 190 me 3427.

Weymouth New Testament
21:19 This He said to indicate the kind of death by which that disciple would bring glory to God; and after speaking thus He said to him, "Follow me."

Once again, notice "HE SAID" to indicate or to signify. So again, it was not a symbal but only words. Hmmm. Revelation has many "words."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 11:28 And 1161 there stood up 450 one 1520 of 1537 them 846 named 3686 Agabus 13, and signified 4591 by 1223 the Spirit 4151 that there should be 3195 1510 great 3173 dearth 3042 throughout 1909 all 3650 the world 3625: which 3748 2532 came to pass 1096 in the days of 1909 Claudius 2804 Caesar 2541.

Weymouth New Testament
11:28 one of whom, named Agabus, being instructed by the Spirit, publicly predicted the speedy coming of a great famine throughout the world. (It came in the reign of Claudius.)

Once again, words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 25:27 For 1063 it seemeth 1380 to me 3427 unreasonable 249 to send 3992 a prisoner 1198, and 2532 not withal 3361 to signify 4591 the crimes 156 [laid] against 2596 him 846.

Weymouth New Testament
25:27 For, when sending a prisoner to Rome, it seems to me to be absurd not to state the charges against him."

WORDS! Not pictures, not symbols.

You said,

Was Jesus ever Raptured?

Young's Literal Translation
1:2 till the day in which, having given command, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostles whom he did choose out, he was taken up,

Darby's English Translation
1:9 And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Clearly "raptured."

Go drive a truck!
Coop

 

[BenJasher]

EDITED BY ADMIN

FYI, I drove a truck for 15 years, before I became a father, and before I went I to the full time ministry. And I have been an ordained minister of the Gospel longer than you have been alive. So learn a little respect.

And if you were half the Bible scholar you claim that I am not, you would have acknowledged that 4591(semaino) in the Greek Lexicon means "to show by signs." And everyone of the scripture verses you took the time to quote indicated that very thing if you took the time to actually look at them and consider what they were saying. Quoting an alternate translation that happens to say things the way you like them only proves that you have access to different translations. That doesn't make you a scholar, any more than owning a paintbrush makes you a painter.

One more thing:
About Jesus being Raptured. You quoted some excellent translations for Acts 1:2. Young and Darby are very good translations. They even went to the trouble to accurately translate analambano as taken up. But to claim that that is a Rapture is to put words and meaning into the scripture that weren't there in the first place, and neither do they belong. And it is being deceitful. That is how false teachers and lying spirits operate, and used car salesman. You aren't a used car salesman are you? That is precisely the tactic the Serpent used on Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Even your precious proof scripture for the Rapture, 1Thess 4:17 is translated incorrectly when it states that we will be taken up. The word there is not analambano but paralambano. Analambano is to be "taken up," paralambano is to be "taken in." Check it out. It is para, not ana." Huge difference in meaning and connotation.

EDITED BY ADMIN

 

[BenJasher]

am trying to understand...so here's a quick question.

you said the day of pentecost was the second coming, how does this connect to the fact that revelations is a prophetic book, written after the day of pentecost, but mentions/describes the second coming?

1) The Book of Revelations is, before anything else, the revelation of Jesus Christ. That is not to be understood in the sense that this Revelation belongs to Him, but that it is a revelation of Him. Maybe it is prophecy, maybe not. But first and foremost, it is a description of Him, that we may know Him.

2) It has all been communicated to John in sign and symbols. It cannot be taken literally without being forced to add to it, or take away from it. And doing so will invoke the curse spoken of in the last verses of the book.

3)You didn't quote a reference, so I can only surmise that you are referring to His coming on a White Horse, with the Saints following behind Him. Rev 19:11-16 I want to be gentle when I say this, I don't want to be rude. But it is the teaching of the Rapture that causes you to see the Second Coming in that passage. That passage is describing the Manifestation of the Sons of God, which happens at the end of the age, not the beginning.

4) Be careful not to confuse the Second coming, which happened (past tense) at the beginning of the age we are now living in, with the Manifestation of the Sons of God which is to take place at the close of this age. Many well meaning people (and some not so well meaning) will read 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thess 4 and see the Second Coming, when it is the Manifestation of the Sons of God that is being spoken of.

 

[dancing queen]

Ok, so this

Rev 19:16 and
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Were pentecost and we're in the 1000 years?

 

[lecoop]

BenJasher said

FYI, I drove a truck for 15 years, before I became a father, and before I went I to the full time ministry. And I have been an ordained minister of the Gospel longer than you have been alive. So learn a little respect.

Let's see: That would make you about 120 years old! Congratulations!

BenJasher said

And if you were half the Bible scholar you claim that I am not, you would have acknowledged that 4591(semaino) in the Greek Lexicon means "to show by signs." And everyone of the scripture verses you took the time to quote indicated that very thing if you took the time to actually look at them and consider what they were saying. Quoting an alternate translation that happens to say things the way you like them only proves that you have access to different translations. That doesn't make you a scholar, any more than owning a paintbrush makes you a painter.

You really are not a good reader are you? Let's look at the KJV:

John12:33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.


John 18:32
32That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

John 21:19
19This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

"He said!" Did He hold up a sign? What about "said" has anything to do with a sign? It was words! At least be man enough to admit it. And since you brought it up, I can read also: Not only does the Greek have the meaning "to show by signs," why did you not quote the other meanings?

1) to give a sign, to signify, indicate

2) to make known

Then, if you bother to read the fine print, Thayer's says about the verses in John, that the meaning in those verses is "to make known."

Our English dictionary says of "signify:" "to make known by signs, speech, or action."

Therefore, it makes little difference which translation one uses: they all mean the same thing: "said" is just not some kind of sign: it is speech; plain and simple. This is a classic example of bible "eisegesis:" imposing your meaning onto scripture. If indeed you are ordained, you should know better. Let's just draw the meaning of the author out of these verses. That is good bible exegesis.



BenJasher said

One more thing:
About Jesus being Raptured. You quoted some excellent translations for Acts 1:2. Young and Darby are very good translations. They even went to the trouble to accurately translate analambano as taken up. But to claim that that is a Rapture is to put words and meaning into the scripture that weren't there in the first place, and neither do they belong. And it is being deceitful. That is how false teachers and lying spirits operate, and used car salesman. You aren't a used car salesman are you? That is precisely the tactic the Serpent used on Eve in the Garden of Eden.

analambano: to take up, raise
epairo: 1) to lift up, raise up, raise on high
KJV usage: AV - take up 4, receive up 3, take 3, take in 2, take into 1; 13

What is so different about Jesus being "taken up" and the church being "taken up?"

harpazo (the real rapture word)
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away

KJV usage: catch up 4, take by force 3, catch away 2, pluck 2,
catch 1, pull 1; 13

For the "harpazo," We are "snatched out," but the rest of the verse says up, for the clouds are up. So in effect, for "harpazo" we are taking up into the sky, to the clouds. It is written, "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." So the end result is the same. He went up into a cloud, and "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." So you tell me: what is the great difference? Which ever Greek word you choose, they end up in the clouds.


BenJasher said

Even your precious proof scripture for the Rapture, 1Thess 4:17 is translated incorrectly when it states that we will be taken up. The word there is not analambano but paralambano. Analambano is to be "taken up," paralambano is to be "taken in." Check it out. It is para, not ana." Huge difference in meaning and connotation.

Why would you use the word "paralambano" for the rapture? This comes from "the one shall be taken and the other left." Did you never read in Luke "where" the taken are actually taken? (harpazo is the word in 1Thess 4:17)

Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

The "one taken and one left" scriptures are not speaking of the rapture of the church, but of the parable of the tares. Trust me, you do NOT want to be the one taken: Luke says that the body is left to be eaten by the buzzards! It seems the angels just snatch the spirit right out of the body, and the body falls dead! So in these verses, they meet the buzzards, not Jesus!

BenJasher said

So what are you, a Bible Scholar or a used car salesman?

Are you going to go back to truck driving?

Coop