The rapture of the Church

[Vic C.]

Well, I am pleasantly surprized and disappointed in a good kind of way.

I would have guessed that I was the only one that believed that The Bride of Christ wasn't the same as the Body of Christ. So in that I am pleasantly surprized. But I am also disappointed by the same facts. It kind of takes the fun out of being the only one who understood such a wonderful secret.

Aaaah... :smt056

PS The previous post was not a denominational issue, it was a false teaching issue, and an attempt to warn those that are mixed up in such a state of affairs.

I realize that. I was just trying to head off a possible confrontation. I want to keep the End Times Forum about End Times.

BTW, I agree with what you posted on the Bride and Body. Thanks.

 

[Solo]

I realize that. I was just trying to head off a possible confrontation. I want to keep the End Times Forum about End Times.

BTW, I agree with what you posted on the Bride and Body. Thanks.

But you know that I am a confrontational sort of feller! 8-)


PS How many Southern Baptists do you know that hold that position concerning the Bride of Christ?

 

[Vic C.]

PS How many Southern Baptists do you know that hold that position concerning the Bride of Christ?

Two; you and I... and one indepentant Baptist; AVBunyan. I can't remember if I worked it out through study or if I read it somewhere in my research. Doesn't matter, I believe it.

Now, AV would say that if we believe that, we should take ut to the next logical step; PreTrib. :o

 

[Solo]

Two; you and I... and one indepentant Baptist; AVBunyan. I can't remember if I worked it out through study or if I read it somewhere in my research. Doesn't matter, I believe it.

Now, AV would say that if we believe that, we should take ut to the next logical step; PreTrib. :o

I have never been one to believe the things that I heard taught, unless I read it in the Bible. So far, I do not read anything that even remotely resembles a pre-trib rapture. I was told by a Southern Baptist preacher that if I did not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, that I would not be able to fellowship in his church. So I didn't. :wink:

 

[Vic C.]

I was told by a Southern Baptist preacher that if I did not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, that I would not be able to fellowship in his church. So I didn't.

Michael,

I would not fellowship in any church who would place any such emphesis on End Times. I feel it is a believer's prerogative to adhere to whatever End Times position and to search the Scriptures for the truth on this matter. Churches should concentrate on salvific issues. I believe End Times may not be an issue of salvation.

Oh, btw, if I did read it during some research, rest assured I checked it against Scripture.

 

[Solo]

Michael,

I would not fellowship in any church who would place any such emphesis on End Times. I feel it is a believer's prerogative to adhere to whatever End Times position and to search the Scriptures for the truth on this matter. Churches should concentrate on salvific issues. I believe End Times may not be an issue of salvation.

Oh, btw, if I did read it during some research, rest assured I checked it against Scripture.

I have attended Southern Baptist churches that were not as "rigid" as this one, but there are different stands taken according to the different parts of the country that you might be in, but overall, the major doctrines that are clear in the Scriptures are followed in the SBC that I have affiliated with. I currently attend a SBC where the pastor is not dogmatic concerning the end-times, but he has a heart on serving people with a thrust for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I know that you check out your research against the Scripture. Your posts are evidenced by this.

 

[lecoop]

Paul is the man in Romans 7 and he is converted. Paul is the man in Romans 8 and he is still converted.

If the SDAs would properly read Romans 7 and 8 they would understand salvation, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Until they do they will make up things like you just have.

Solo, sometimes I REALLY enjoy your answers! This is a good one. :smt042

Coop

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, we've had our fun. I'd like to return to the topic, which is the "rapture" of the church. Thanks all.

Peace

 

[lecoop]

Ok, we've had our fun. I'd like to return to the topic, whuch is the "rapture" of the church. Thanks all.

Peace

Thanks, Vic

Coop

 

[Vic C.]

IT SEEMS THIS BEARS REPEATING. :-?

Ok, we've had our fun. I'd like to return to the topic, which is the "rapture" of the church. Thanks all.

Peace

Scorpia, I asked we put this behind us and return the the topic. I am insisting that you don't continue to repost the same post I removed. You may, of course, continue your conversation with Coop via PM. If you continue to post off topic, I will have you to please not post in the End Times Forum anymore.

I will now clean out any unrelated post the best I can.

 

[Jay T]

Let's get back to the topic, OK ?

The Secret Rapture theory is quickly dismissed, once a person has studied out ALL the Bible verses dealing with Christ's 2nd coming.

Jesus has warned Christians NOT to be decieved on th point of His 2nd coming, yet the Secret Rapture theory shows that His words are ignored !

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, I cleaned out all unrelated posts. As I was doing so, I found this:

Vic Said:
Quote:
That's simple and Biblical Gabby... We are The Body of Christ. Israel is The Bride. How many times throughout the OT do we see Israel being refered to as the feminine gender? I know this line of thinking is strange to many because of what they have been taught (traditionally) but are you/they being taught correctly? Only the Bible can confirm that.


If we are the body of Christ, that means we will get married to Isreal?

Yes Zero, that is what's implied. 8-)

 

[lecoop]

Let's get back to the topic, OK ?

The Secret Rapture theory is quickly dismissed, once a person has studied out ALL the Bible verses dealing with Christ's 2nd coming.

...

:smt043 :smt043 :smt043

(Rolling on floor, laughing at such a rediculous claim!)

: -)) Prewrathers say the same thing! Pretribbers say the same thing! Each group looks at the same verses differently. If these verses were clear, we would all be in agreement.

If Jesus is coming (at the rapture) for those that are looking for His coming, then where will this leave those that are not looking? Will they be "caught up" because they are born again, or will they be left, because they were not looking for His coming?

pretrib/prewrath all the way!

Coop

 

[Vic C.]

: -)) Prewrathers say the same thing! Pretribbers say the same thing! Each group looks at the same verses differently. If these verses were clear, we would all be in agreement.

Pretribulationists don't say that. They are the only ones who claim imminence.

 

[lecoop]

You may be right, Vic.

2 Thess. 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,
2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

It is EXTREMELY difficult to use this as a "proof text" for several reasons. It seems that Paul wrote it in code, so that only those that had heard him would understand. Next, we don't know for sure whether or not Paul wrote "day of the Lord" or "Day of Christ." Neither do we know for sure what he might have meant, if he did write, "day of Christ." Some Greeks texts use the "day of the Lord", and others the "Day of Christ." Next, it seems that Paul just left out some words! We can assume what he meant, but do we really know?

I would like to point you to one verse, and work from there: In verse 6 Paul said, "And now ye know what withholdeth..." HOW do we now know? It must be that Paul just told us, but in code so it does not jump out at us. So if we look at the previous verses, we should be able to determine what Paul wrote that told us who or what was doing the withholding. We know from verse 7, that whoever or whatever is doing the "holding," gets "taken out of the way. So lets go back and see if there is anything "removed" or "taken."

2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Nope! Nothing could possibly be "taken out" or removed here.

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Nope! Nothing here but a description of the beast/antichrist.

2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

At first glance, there is nothing "removed" here, or "taken out of the way." However, if we translate this as it used to be in some texts (Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, An Expanded Translation by Kenneth Wuest ), it would read:

2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a departure first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

If "departure" is what Paul had in mind, rather than "departure from the faith," then we know by other rapture verses, that this departure is indeed a "removing" or a "taken out of the way," for in the rapture, we are "caught up" by God Himself.

It would seem very likely that this is the meaning Paul wanted, for he did say, "And now ye know," just as if he had just written the answer. And, indeed, it seems as if He did.

Can the meaning "departure" come from "apostasia?" Certainly. There are good arguments on both sides of this, as departing from the faith, or "a spacial departure," as in the rapture. However, Paul said, "and know you know," showing us that he had just written who was doing the restraining, and that that "who" would be 'taken out of the way."

With these thoughts, it seems clear that people had heard about a letter as from Paul, or read it, that they were already "in" the day of the Lord. In other words, that "day" had started sometime previous to this moment. These folks were very upset by this. Why? Because they had heard Paul teach them that the rapture would come before the day of the Lord! It is the only common sense reason for them to be upset.

So Paul tells them, concerning the coming of Christ and the gathering together unto Him [rapture], that "that day," i.e. the "day of the Lord" [Christ] could not possibly have already started, for he had previously told them that that day of the Lord could not start until the rapture came first, and then the man of sin be revealed.

Another proof of Paul's meaning here is in verse 5: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" What do we have recorded that Paul had previously taught them? Did he ever mention anything about a "departure from the faith," in his first letter? No. But he did write to them about the rapture in that letter.

Therefore, even though this is a very difficult passage, and should not be used as a "proof text" for any rapture theory, these verses could mean a pretrib rapture. However, proof should be found elsewhere, due to the ambiguity in these verses.

Coop

 

[Jay T]

It is EXTREMELY difficult to use this as a "proof text" for several reasons. It seems that Paul wrote it in code, so that only those that had heard him would understand.

I don't believe that for a minute !


The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that......therefore it is to the Holy Spirit to ask for help, in understanding that Bible text.

The Bible is not written, so man cannot understand it.
It is the guidebook to the entire plan of salvation, with ALL its many details.

Next, we don't know for sure whether or not Paul wrote "day of the Lord" or "Day of Christ." Neither do we know for sure what he might have meant, if he did write, "day of Christ." Some Greeks texts use the "day of the Lord", and others the "Day of Christ." Next, it seems that Paul just left out some words! We can assume what he meant, but do we really know?

YES, we can....by comparing other scriptures on the same topic, found elsewhere in the Bible.


I would like to point you to one verse, and work from there: In verse 6 Paul said, "And now ye know what withholdeth..." HOW do we now know? It must be that Paul just told us, but in code so it does not jump out at us. So if we look at the previous verses, we should be able to determine what Paul wrote that told us who or what was doing the withholding. We know from verse 7, that whoever or whatever is doing the "holding," gets "taken out of the way. So lets go back and see if there is anything "removed" or "taken."

2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Nope! Nothing could possibly be "taken out" or removed here.[/quote]The reign of the Emperors of Rome have to be removed so that the Popes would then have control.

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

The title of the Pope is...."Lord God, the Pope".

Nope! Nothing here but a description of the beast/antichrist.

Which is described in Daniel 7:23....the 4th beast, is the 4th Kingdom....Rome.

REMEMBER......the Bible ALWAYS interprets itslelf.

 

[Vic C.]

Coop, there is another feasable explanation to verse 5 that you seem to dismiss.

2 thess 2:5
5 Do you not remember that I told you these things, I yet being with you?

It's highly unlikey that he explained who this restrainer is just a few verses above. If so, then why is he asking if they remember? If it is as you say, about 15 seconds or less would have expired from the time he talked about the apostasia. I doubt they would have forgotten.

I believe Paul addressed them in detail about this Restrainer at another time, not recorded here. Plus, there is historical context missing here that Paul, being a former Jew, would have known and taught. I know I have posted about this in the past and it was not received well, but I believe it is valid, none the less.

So here it is again.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 951#312951

It would he helpful to get a copy of the Greek Septuagint and look up the word apostasia. In no instance is it used to mean a 'departure' and I doubt if Paul means that here, in the passage in question.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 879#312879

You also may want to take Michael's suggestion here in his first paragraph.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 927#312927

A study of the Archangel Michael may be revealing.

 

[lecoop]

Coop, there is another feasable explanation to verse 5 that you seem to dismiss.

2 thess 2:5
5 Do you not remember that I told you these things, I yet being with you?

It's highly unlikey that he explained who this restrainer is just a few verses above. If so, then why is he asking if they remember? If it is as you say, about 15 seconds or less would have expired from the time he talked about the apostasia. I doubt they would have forgotten.

I believe Paul addressed them in detail about this Restrainer at another time, not recorded here. Plus, there is historical context missing here that Paul, being a former Jew, would have known and taught. I know I have posted about this in the past and it was not received well, but I believe it is valid, none the less.

So here it is again.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 951#312951

It would he helpful to get a copy of the Greek Septuagint and look up the word apostasia. In no instance is it used to mean a 'departure' and I doubt if Paul means that here, in the passage in question.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 879#312879

You also may want to take Michael's suggestion here in his first paragraph.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 927#312927

A study of the Archangel Michael may be revealing.

Actually, I started chatting with people from Israel, for the express purpose of seeing what they though about "Michael stand up." I ask them if there was any way that this in their Hebrew Tanack could mean "stand still," or cease to act on their behalf. I suspect that Rashi is the only one in Israel that believes "stand up" means to "sit down," or become inactive.

In verse 5, Paul is chiding them for not remembering what he had taught them in person, when he was there, probably months ago. This sentence could almost be put in parenthesis. Therefore, I stand by what I said: Paul tells them that "now they know," so that they will study and find out what he meant. I will agree that a "spacial departure" is not the normal use of "apostasia," but history shows us that it can be used for that. Did Paul mean a departure from the faith? If so, then where else did he ever mention this? In fact, where is this great "departure from the faith?" The church is growing faster than she ever has before, and finally, for the first time, is growing far faster than the birth rate. In other words, there is no falling away! There is a great revival!

I believe that Paul writes this in a way that only those that heard him teach will get what he is writing. I suspect that he wrote this this way, to extend his life!

As I said in the beginning, this is not a good verse for a "proof text," as each camp attempts to use it for their own argument. It is, therefore, ambiguous.

I learned something in an Exegesis class in bible college. I have probably forgotton most of what I learned, but I learned this part well. It was stated that to study doctrine, it was essential to start with the major scriptures on a subject, and obtain the doctrine there; then fill in with the minor scriptures. If one fails here, they will come away with warped doctrine. For end times study, one MUST therefore, start with Revelation, as that is the greatest work on the end times. Yes, there are some things left out, that can be filled in with the minor scriptures, but John covers the entire 70th week in great detail. Most people can't even find the 70th week in Johns' writing. I confess, I could not either, until the HS showed me. I have seen time and again, where someone comes up with doctrine from minor sources, then has to rearrange Revelation to fit that doctrine. If we start with Revelation, we will not have to rearrange anything!

I am convinced that John has shown is the effects of the rapture, in Rev. 7, the great crowd in heaven. If you disagree, let's dig deep in those verses, and see what we find.

Coop

 

[Jay T]

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This Bible verse points out that there is ONLY ONE resurrection for the Righteous people.........and those who died during the Mark of the Beast Reign are in that group.

 

[BenJasher]

This is from a book I am writing, and should be going to the publisher shortly. It should cast the Rapture in a different light:

The Greek word “harpazo†(Translated Raptizo in the Vulgate, and this is where we get the word Rapture from) belongs to a family of other words in the Greek, and none of them really say anything positive. They all carry a negative connotation, of criminal or violent activities:

Harpage means extortion, or ravening, or pillage.
Harpagamos means robbery
Harpazo means to seize
Haropax means rapacious, extortion.

They all have the negative impact of loss, of someone stealing something from you, or taking by force what is yours and appropriating it for themselves. It is funny to me how one of these related words has become a cornerstone in the faith of millions. The hope of the lion’s share of Christianity is based on a word with criminal connotations. It’s almost criminal to think of such a thing.

But the particular word we are looking at here is Harpazo. It is used 13 times in the New Testament. I want to look at these instances now and see if this word actually tells us anything we didn’t already know.

Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.

Violence and force are the two words our Lord used in reference to Harpazo in this instance. Translated into the English the way it was, this passage gives the impression that the Kingdom of God could be forcefully subjugated by someone who was strong enough. But we know that is never going to happen.

Suffice it to say that in this instance of the Greek word Harpazo, it has the negative connotation of violence and something being taken by force.

Mat 12:29 Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Our word is used here twice. It is translated “spoil†both times. Again, a negative understanding is indicated here.

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart. This is he that was sown by the way side.

Here we have “the evil one†doing the “Rapturing,†and we are still looking for an instance of use that has a positive feel to it. Haven’t found such a thing so far.

Joh 6:15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force , to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone.

Here, the people were going to “Rapture†Jesus. What a dramatic turn around from what we think we know about the Greek word for Rapture.

Joh 10:12 He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth them:...

Here we have the wolves "rapturing" the sheep. Maybe when the Rapture happens, some carnivorous predator will be feeding on our carcasses as well.

Joh 10:28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Ahhh… Our first positive meaning attached to the use of this Greek word, almost. A very good promise to hang on to at times. But inspite of that, our word for the day retains a negative connotation.

Joh 10:29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Here we have a repeat of what was said above.

Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.

Here we almost have the exact meaning that the Futurist/ Rapturian would like to tell us that this word means. But we still miss the mark. Instead of Philip being Raptured into Heaven and given a glorified body, we end up somewhere else. So did Philip. Philip ended up in Azotus after this, without a glorified body. He didn’t go into Heaven to be with Jesus like we think he would have if this meaning truly belonged to this Greek word.

I can’t comment at this time on the mechanics of just exactly what it meant when it says that Philip was “caught awayâ€Â. All we do know that he was supernaturally transported from one location to another.

Act 23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the castle.

Here we have Paul being arrested. He was raptured into the castle because his words had started a riot. Here in this castle he was bound with chains and his guards were ordered to scourge him. So when we get Raptured, are we going to the Great Big Dinner Table in the Sky to let Angels feed us grapes while we play our golden harps; or are we going to be arrested and beaten? Hmm...

2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven.

2Co 12:4 how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Here, Paul acknowledges that not even he knows whether this experience happened in or out of his body. It is obvious that he is speaking of himself here, inspite of his use of the third person pronouns.

If he could or would say for certain whether he was in or out of his body when this happened, we would be able to do a better job of judging if the use of “Harpazo†in the Greek supported our idea of a Rapture.

But because he doesn’t, we can’t assume that it does. Therefore, we can’t use it to support the Rapturian interpretation. Besides, Paul retained his carnal body for some time after this experience. He doesn’t mention seeing, being with or talking to Jesus. He just heard unspeakable words. No mansion on the hillside. No streets of Gold.

Plus, he makes mention of two ideas that aren’t clearly defined for us anywhere in the scriptures: the levels of heaven, and Paradise. There isn’t much we can rightfully deduce from this, other than that this experience once again fails to give us what we look for.

1Th 4:17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

This scripture, contrary to what we have been told, doesn’t mean we are going to be Raptured. For one thing, it will cross-reference to Hebrews 11:40. It goes into more detail about the foregone Heroes of Faith not being able to be made perfect with out us.

Here Paul uses two Early Church era figures of speech: caught up in the clouds, and meeting the Lord in the air.

Both of these concepts have to do with the Second Coming. His return will not be to take His Church out of the world, but to receive a Kingdom from the hands of His Saints. This brings into play the “Parousia.â€Â

Jude 23 and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Once again, the idea of something happening against someone’s will. Only this time, it is done in a good sense. It would be an act of mercy to be able to snatch someone out of the fire in the manner described here. But what Christian wants to be the one snatched out of the fire in these circumstances? This would not be an occasion of honor for this Christian, but of dishonor.

Rev 12:5 And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne.

Unless someone has any ideas about this happening somewhere off in the future sometime, let me begin on this scripture by saying that the woman here is the Bride of Christ, the Nation of Israel. The New Testament Church was born from her. The Man-Child (the Body of Christ) was brought forth from her in great pangs of birth. The Man-Child she gave birth to has been caught up to heaven by the spirit of God. Even Paul declares to us that we are seated in heavenly places at the right hand of God, and that our citizenship is in the heavenlies.

Because it bears repeating, I will say it again:

It is funny to me how one of these related words has become a cornerstone in the faith of millions. The hope of the lion’s share of Christianity is based on a word with criminal connotations. It’s almost criminal to think of such a thing.

Also, the word Rapture has more in common with Rape than scripture.