Rapture Survey for CFnetians

[XTruth]

Ok, I see what you are saying Will you look at the post on page one that tells, in bold-face, the raptures 1-6? That will explain the conclusion you have come to a little further. There are only 2 resurrections...agreed. The resurrection of the just is a period of about 2,000 yrs since Jesus was the beginning of the first resurrection...agreed. Take a look into that when you have time and tell me what you think...PM or here. Raptures 1-5 are all the sum of the first resurrection.

Information taught to me by the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible on page 175 in the N.T.
aLL bIBLE REFERENCES FROM THAT STUDY were researched by me to make sure it was the Word of God and not the philosophies of man.

What are you calling a "Rapture?" What is the relationship between a "rapture" and a resurrection?

Sorry for not answering your questions, but but I am at a loss to understand what you are saying in sufficient depth that I can comment. It would have to be explored more.

Ok, I see a Rapture as the collecting of the soul, spirit, and body in it's eternal state. It obviously doesn't matter if the righteous is dead or alive physically (1 Cor.15:51-54; 1 Thes.4:13-17).
A resurrection and a Rapture are related and almost the same when the resurrection is into the incorrupted and immortal body....for example, Lazarus was a resurrection, but not part of the first resurrection, lest he was the first fruits and not Christ. The reason is that he was still in his mortal body. Christ was resurrected soul, spirit, and body in His unforfeitable state, but was not immediately caught up because He had a little more to do. The rest of the resurrections are simultaneus with their catching aways.

 

[mondar]

As far as the metaphorical...I'll give you the rule I adhere to throughout Scripture, you obviously use some other way. The principle is to literalize instead of spiritualizing. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such. The rule is to take the Bible literal wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.

Actually, I'm reading scripture very literal. When Rev 4:1 tells me a voice tells John to "come up hither" It only mentions John, so I take that to mean John and only John got a bird's eye view of things happening on Earth from Heaven.

I will agree with Vic on his reading of many of the texts discussed. Would not the reading of John 4:1be confirmed by the use of the 2nd singular (αναβα) "come up." If the plural had been used, it would have obviously directed our attention to something other then John.

Concerning Hermeneutics.... I suspect we all agree on taking the passage "literally." That seems a quick and easy way to claim some hermeneutical high ground. Is not the difference actually interpretative. Some might read something into the text, you, me or X.

Hi Mondar... welcome. You may be correct but I viewed Jesus' resurrection as part of the first resurrection.

If you are saying that Christs resurrection is a part of the resurrection of the just on a theological basis I would agree. The same context (1 Cor 15) says we are made one with Christ, or we are "in Christ." Certainly verse 22 would validate looking at verse 23 in a theological way.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive
Those in Adam (All of us) die, and those in Christ (believers) are made alive with Christ. Romans 6 also talks about this. So then theologically we are resurrected with Christ.

However, in the context of 1 Cor 15 I dont think Paul is talking about a theological order, but a chronology. I take this from the phrase... "23 But each in his own order:" So then, Christ was obviously resurrected chronologically before those who are "Christs" at his coming.

I think this is the reason Christ's resurrection is called a "firstfruits" within that context. If we follow that analogy, it is then two separate harvests that come from one field. If you look at the field, it is one resurrection, but if you look at the chronology of the timing, it is two separate harvests (or resurrections).

Fair?

 

[Vic C.]

If you are saying that Christs resurrection is a part of the resurrection of the just on a theological basis I would agree.

Yes sir... from a theological point of view. I hadn't considered this a chronological issue, but that is an interesting perspective.

 

[RND]

Christ was resurrected soul, spirit, and body in His unforfeitable state....

Small, minor correction.....

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[XTruth]

Christ was resurrected soul, spirit, and body in His unforfeitable state....

Small, minor correction.....

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus had appeared to His disciples. Verse 37 says that the 10 thought they were seeing a spirit. Jesus told them to look at His hands and feet, handle Him, see Me and know that it is Me in the flesh. If it were just a spirit, or just His spirit, then He would not be flesh and bone. This was after Jesus had died. He was resurrected...He was in His resurrected (firstfruits) body. This body had His spirit and soul in it, just as your body does. Please explain your little correction. Was this a mere resurrection of the dead like Lazarus, or was Jesus in His eternal body? Did He not walk through the wall in this body? If this was not the resurrected body of Christ that is the first fruits of all the glorified saints in the soon coming future, then when did Jesus receive this body in Scripture?

 

[RND]

Jesus had appeared to His disciples. Verse 37 says that the 10 thought they were seeing a spirit. Jesus told them to look at His hands and feet, handle Him, see Me and know that it is Me in the flesh. If it were just a spirit, or just His spirit, then He would not be flesh and bone. This was after Jesus had died. He was resurrected...He was in His resurrected (firstfruits) body. This body had His spirit and soul in it, just as your body does.

I'm sorry I don't believe in the pagan notion of the "duality" of man.

Please explain your little correction.

Jesus appeared in His glorified body not as a spirit.

Was this a mere resurrection of the dead like Lazarus, or was Jesus in His eternal body?

He was in His glorified body, the one He ascended to heaven in.

Did He not walk through the wall in this body?

Yes.

If this was not the resurrected body of Christ that is the first fruits of all the glorified saints in the soon coming future, then when did Jesus receive this body in Scripture?

He received this glorified body at His resurrection.

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Just to comment -- I've decided that Revelation is purposely confusing. We know a little, but don't really have a clear picture, just a few pieces to work with. I've read it at least 10x, and have a notebook full of my "interpretations" of what individual verses mean. Sometimes I get an idea and then google it to see how many other people agree with my interpretation. Lol -- there's always someone, and that's not always good!

I think in the end when it all comes to light we'll all be shocked about order and details.

 

[RND]

Just to comment -- I've decided that Revelation is purposely confusing. We know a little, but don't really have a clear picture, just a few pieces to work with. I've read it at least 10x, and have a notebook full of my "interpretations" of what individual verses mean. Sometimes I get an idea and then google it to see how many other people agree with my interpretation. Lol -- there's always someone, and that's not always good!

I think in the end when it all comes to light we'll all be shocked about order and details.

There is 408 verses in Revelation. Over 270 are either taken from, or allude to, the OT. Thank God the Bible interprets itself!

Bible Prophecy Truth

 

[XTruth]

Just to comment -- I've decided that Revelation is purposely confusing. We know a little, but don't really have a clear picture, just a few pieces to work with. I've read it at least 10x, and have a notebook full of my "interpretations" of what individual verses mean. Sometimes I get an idea and then google it to see how many other people agree with my interpretation. Lol -- there's always someone, and that's not always good!

I think in the end when it all comes to light we'll all be shocked about order and details.

God doesn't give us information in the Bible in order to keep us in the dark.

MAT.13
33Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

All false teachings, religious programs, and professed Christian lives seek to hide behind the Word of God. So yes, many will have many different teachings b/c of human philosophy and seducing spirits that teach doctrines from demons (1 Tim.4:1), but there is a clear meaning to Scripture...and the more Christian forums I read from, the more I see that few will know the Truth.

 

[Vic C.]

Guys,

The subject is Rapture, not immortality. We can discuss that in the Apologetics or Debate Forums.

Thanks.

 

[Vic C.]

Guys,

Your posts were moved here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35144&p=421070#p421070

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

I don't believe it exists, therefore I voted for Option 1.

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Interesting, Captain...

Why? (just curious)

 

[Elf]

I don't believe it exists, therefore I voted for Option 1.

Same here.

 

[Vic C.]

I don't believe it exists, therefore I voted for Option 1.

Same here.

The two of you most likely hold the reformer's position on most End Times beliefs. Cool.

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

Interesting, Captain...

Why? (just curious)

Because it's not Biblical.

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

[quote="Entropic_Prodigy":10sg0uio]Interesting, Captain...

Why? (just curious)

Because it's not Biblical.[/quote:10sg0uio]

I can see where people "get it" from, but prior to converting to Christianity, I thought it was just something thought up by Tim LaHaye...but I've since then read Revelation more than just a few times, and it DOES seem to point to some sort of rapturing...

Prior to the Left Behind series, I'd never heard Christians speak of the rapture before, but now it's common to hear about it in church services.

I wanted to hear the "why" because I thought it might possibly lead to an Ah Ha on my part...but I could use google instead, if you're not into sharing.

 

[XTruth]

These are all pro-Rapture of the church verses. I don't think you'll find all these on google. (1 Cor.15:23, 51-54; Jn.14:1-3; Lk.21:34-36; 2 Cor.5:1-8; Eph.5:27; Phil.3:11, 20-21; 1 Thes.2:19; 3:13; 4:13-17; 5:9, 23; 2 Thes.2:1, 7; Col.3:4; Jas.5:7-8; 1 Jn.2:28; 3:2; 1 Pt.5:4; Rev.4:1). They're not to be mistaken with the Second Coming verses, when He comes back with the saints, not for the saints.

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Right. No, I was going to google why there was NO rapture, not why there is...and yes, google tells me that Rapture doctrine is fairly new, since like 1830. Gotta go take my kid to find art supplies for her school project, otherwise I'd bother to be more accurate about the date.

Thanks for the verses, xtruth -- and yes, I was thinking more like 2nd coming verses, I'll double-check later.

 

[XTruth]

Here are some Second Coming verses
(Isa.63:1-6; Dan.2:44-45; 7:13-14, 18, 27; Joel 3; Zech.14:1-5, 9 16-21; Mat.24:29-31; 25:31-46; 2 Thes.1:7-10; 2:8; Jude 14-15; Rev.1:7; 19:11-16; 20:1-3).