Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You either didn't hear him correctly, or you're lying. He never called for a "nuclear attack" or quoted Lieberman calling for a "nuclear attack"

"Therefore it is time for America to embrace the words of Senator Joseph Lieberman, and consider a military preemptive strike on Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel".

Whoops! Your right. I guess some one else must be keeping "all options on the table." My bad, I guess regular bombs and white phosphorus are Ok. (good fruits?)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yep, whether we rage or laugh.........there is just no coming to a resolution with some. I'm trying though

Much love, and thanks for the support.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by NOTurTypical

You either didn't hear him correctly, or you're lying. He never called for a "nuclear attack" or quoted Lieberman calling for a "nuclear attack"

"Therefore it is time for America to embrace the words of Senator Joseph Lieberman, and consider a military preemptive strike on Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel".

Whoops! Your right. I guess some one else must be keeping "all options on the table." My bad, I guess regular bombs and white phosphorus are Ok. (good fruits?)

"All options on the table" is politician-talk for war when sanctions fail. "Pre-emptive strike" means being offensive, taking the first shot in the war, never being on the defensive. That's a bad place to be in war.

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yep, whether we rage or laugh.........there is just no coming to a resolution with some. I'm trying though

Much love, and thanks for the support.

No problem you're going to need it. Remember your armor, and prayer is our heavy artillery.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Second major flaw


In Matthew ch7 v23, he is going to say “I never knew you”, and the speech would then continue “depart from me, you evildoers”. These people are illustrating what he said in v21, that “Not everyone…shall enter the kingdom of heaven”.
In Luke ch13 v27, he is going to say to the latecomers knocking at the door “I do not know where you come from”, and the speech would then continue “Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
Then here in Matthew ch25 v12 another set of latecomers knocking at the door hear the same message, “I do not know you”, and we can understand the second part of the message, viz. “Depart from me”.

“I do not know you” is the message of final judgement and exclusion from the kingdom, and that’s what it means when the five foolish Virgins hear it. Therefore v13 cannot mean that they get a second chance.

Were it not for the letters to the churches I could more easily accept what you are saying but the differences between Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea are too stark for me to be able to accept the limited version that all who would be saved "wise virgins" will suffer the beast in spite of there being a marriage feast to attend or that that event is a representation of when Noah was ushered into the ark before the rain started to fall. That parallel is made in scripture and sits with me.

All "I do not know you" has to mean is that they are not Thyatira, not that they don't have a chance to quit being lukewarm and loving this life more than Him.

Third major flaw

Search the scripture; look at the other places where there’s a contrast between “keeping awake” and “being asleep/in bed”.
1 Thessalonians ch5 vv1-11 is one well-known passage where there’s a contrast between the wakeful and the sleeping, between the children of day and the children of night.
Let me draw your attention to the effects of the contrast. Those who are watchful, sober, sons of the day, will “obtain salvation” (v9).
But those who are taken by surprise, because they are sleeping, drunken, sons of darkness, will experience the opposite, which is “wrath” (v9) and “sudden destruction” (v3).
Similarly Revelation ch16 v15 says “Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that he may not go naked”. (People in those days did not wear pyjamas, so “nakedness” is the state of the man found in bed when the time comes).
Note that in this verse only the watchful is blessed. The man who is not awake does not get the blessing at all.

This is all well and fine but we see in the parable of the 10 that the unwise missed their coming not because they were asleep but because they were out buying more oil.

We also that some are saved by compassion and others by fire. John sees those who come out of great tribulation as fire standing upon a sea of glass. If I understand correctly you don't believe John's being taken up is representative of the harpazo or those raptured but the parallel can be drawn easily according to your interpretation plus the few verses I provided. Thyatira is told to hold fast til he comes, Sardis is given a white robe of the martyrs, and Laodicea is counseled to by gold tried in fire. Here is a clear distinction between what one receives for not having anything against it and the others having defiled themselves somewhat.

You think the penalty for “not watching” is missing the first bus, as it were, and having to wait for the second one.
But the New Testament teaching is that the penalty for “not watching” is “sudden destruction” and exclusion from the kingdom. There is nothing about a second chance.

I don't find this interpretation to be so explicit as you may have me believe. Luke discusses in chapter 12 the possibility of Christ coming in any of three watches.....arguably perhaps in each of all for those who would be waiting and not give up thinking the Lord is delaying his coming. Nevertheless, it is clear in scripture that salvation is by faith through grace. Any who would call on him will be saved and not just those who were explicitly looking at the moment he comes like lightning. Again, John see many who come out of great tribulation so unless the wise virgins are separated from the unwise for refusing the beast (which is a possibility) then we would necessarily have a harpzao event that wouldn't mean it's too late for everyone else.

I'll never be done studying and know i'll never understand it all until I one day stand with Christ but whether there is a harpazo or whether I have my head cut off for not worshiping the beast, I still think the "harpazo" is worth looking and hoping for

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I cannot accept this scholars "opinion"

First major flaw

You treat this verse as part of the bridegroom’s speech to the five Virgins.
You will find that none of the modern translations agree with you, and none of the commentaries.
They would place the closing quotation marks, indicating the end of the bridegroom’s speech, at the end of v12.

V13 is not part of the story- it is what Jesus says about the story to the people who are listening to him.
If you look through the other stories in the same series, you will see that he uses “Watch, therefore…”, or something similar, as a kind of refrain. See ch24 v42. See ch24 v44.
The pattern is something like;
“Here is my first story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready.
Here is my next story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready.
Here is another story.
And the moral is that you need to be watchful and ready”.
V13 is Jesus saying to the surrounding listeners “You’ve just heard the story of the five Virgins who entered the kingdom and the other five who were excluded. So for heaven’s sake learn from their example and don’t make the same mistake as the second group”.

I have always read it is though he were speaking to the unwise virgins in verse 12 because verse 13 in the KJV is noted with a "start new paragraph" symbol. Chapter 24:42 begins and new paragraph therefor I read it as the first verse but I can understand where you are coming from although I don't trust "other versions." I read the kjv and Interlinear because I've found others to leave out stories entirely or be interpretations, not translations.

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
This is all well and fine but we see in the parable of the 10 that the unwise missed their coming not because they were asleep but because they were out buying more oil.

"Being asleep" and "not being there" are two different images which essentially relate to the same thing, ie "not being ready"
As for what "being ready" actually means in theological terms, I suggest it comes down to having or not having the right saving relationship with Christ. Those whose faith has been "choked" and are no longer believing have ceased to be "ready" in the sense intended.
This is another aspect of the "clothed/naked" contrast that I didn't mention the last time I quoted it. It may also be about having, or not having "put on Christ as a garment", as Paul puts it.

Allegorical interpretation of the seven churches is not really a safe guide, on its own, because it's too subjective. It's too easy to read one's own ideas into the process.

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I have always read it is though he were speaking to the unwise virgins in verse 12 because verse 13 in the KJV is noted with a "start new paragraph" symbol. Chapter 24:42 begins and new paragraph therefor I read it as the first verse but I can understand where you are coming from although I don't trust "other versions." I read the kjv and Interlinear because I've found others to leave out stories entirely or be interpretations, not translations.

As the verse numbers in that comment stand, you're agreeing with me.
But I think you were intending to say "he was speaking to the unwise virgins in v13 because v14 is a new paragraph".
To which my response is; yes, that's natural, because v14 starts a fresh story in the series.
The Authorised Version says nothing one way or the other about quotation marks, because it doesn't use them.

Anyway, I would assume that even if there was going to be a "Rapture", it would be taking those who believe in Christ rather than those who believe in the Rapture, so people's views on the subject ought to make no difference.

reply to post by pthena

There seems to be a whole lot of money and political power peddling supporting the spread of various notions.

They seem to politically support Israel, but when a Jew asks them a question then they get kicked out.

This is how they sold their Darby cult religion to start with, back in the 1800's, by putting on these conferences in nice places and controlling the dialogue.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He didn't "invent" anything, he "popularized" one already that had been taught for over 1,000 years.

So can you explain how it got from secret cult meetings a thousand years ago, to Darby?
Was he a member of a secret brotherhood?
So basically what you are saying is that you believe somehow this story is true but you can't offer anything that might back it up.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You said Greek verb tenses only refereed to masculine or feminine usages.

You are the one who keeps using the term, tenses, not me.
I was giving an example of how different word morphologys affect how they are understood in the context of sentence structure. Do I have to give you a lesson in Greek? You claim to be able to speak Greek but appear to not know the first thing about it. These grammatical notations do not affect the basic definition of the word but help to identify how they relate to other words in the same sentence.

And sorry, you should realize by now no one cares when you call them "cult" members.

Feel free to not defend your belief system against such charges, since you can't anyway. There is one ancestry to trace it, and it goes to Darby and no one else beyond that. If you think it does, then offer some evidence.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

being at all about the time of the end or leading up unto the very time of the end when Jesus shows up again, I find to be unscriptural.

Can you define "The End"?
The end of what?
What exactly do you believe is going to end?

Christ would also not have told us he was going to prepare a place for us and would again come to receive us unto himself.

His going away he was describing before his arrest. Right after that, he says"You know the way to the place where I am going."
He meant his death. I have to think that he was able to beyond death take people to heaven.

What does matter is that be watching as we see the days approaching and to be ready in our hearts not loving this world and the things of it more than we love him and want to be with him.

Jesus can take you right now, and to think otherwise is taking away from the abilities of Jesus. This is what Jesus is teaching Martha through the resurrection of her brother. She says he will rise on the last day, and he says 'I am the resurrection', then goes on to demonstrate the concept.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You can't equate the Jews with "virgins", that's a metaphor for the bride of Christ. I.E. Christians.

The Gospels are all about Jesus' message to the Jews.
To think otherwise is not seeing the forest for the trees.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It wasn't a "blog" it was Adventist.org.

So, it is still a blog and one person's opinion and is an interface with non-Adventists, so presents the sort of thing someone would expect to find about a church. Do you see anything in there about a dogma and a creed?

reply to post by jmdewey60

So can you explain how it got from secret cult meetings a thousand years ago, to Darby?

Sure, right after you show where I said it 'came from secret cult meetings a thousand years ago.'

That's a straw man.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You are the one who keeps using the term, tenses, not me.

That's your issue to deal with, that's what they are; verb tenses.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Feel free to not defend your belief system against such charges.

Okay. That's basic logic. Never address ad hominem attacks.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sure, right after you show where I said it 'came from secret cult meetings a thousand years ago.'

That's a straw man.

I don't see any other way to understand your point.
You say the Darby theories existed before Darby but they were not allowed. So it would have been a secret society that kept these mysteries for the initiates to verbally pass down from generation to generation, until such time that it was safe to proclaim heresies without fear of burning at the stake.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You can't equate the Jews with "virgins", that's a metaphor for the bride of Christ. I.E. Christians.

The Gospels are all about Jesus' message to the Jews.
To think otherwise is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Do you have a children's Picture Bible?

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't see any other way to understand your point.

Here's a good start:

1. Stop using straw men when you rationalize internally.
2. Listen to what people say.

95% of your comprehension errors will vanish on the spot.