Rapture vs NONE rapture (dialogue to all christians)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Not only that, 9 out of 10 denominational churches are amillennialist in their Eschatology, that's a carryover from the RCC. It also highlights their lack of depth and understanding in the OT. There are 400 some verses in Revelation, and they refer back to 800 some places in the OT books. The book is entirely in code, yet all those codes are addressed in the OT.

Thats because Revelation is an amalgamation of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zecharia and Amos amoung some others. If you know what to look for in Revelation you can trace it back to it's source in the OT and it draws out a detailed battlemap where Yeshua goes on a rampage across the entire M.E. ending at the plains of Meggido.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Much more than that, a person has no chance of grasping revelation chapter 5 without understanding the book of Ruth. Revelation is a reverse of Genesis, the allusions in the book go throughout the entire OT. Daniel is another book heavily relied upon, and yes Ezekiel speaks the most about the day of the Lord. Hosea and Joel are heavily relied upon, and many of the idioms used after chapter 4:1 of Revelation go back to Genesis.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I started with Revelation and went straight into the prophets. God doesn't just warn you once of the doom coming, he warns us many times to get out of the way of the boulder he is going to roll down the hill. He's been giving us these warnings for thousands of years.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


double posted

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . it will end when the "fullness of the gentiles be come in".

There is no statement saying that the hardness did not already end.
You can see the same sentence structure in
Galatians 3:19
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. . .

Romans 11:25 ἄχρις οὗ (τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) εἰσέλθῃ
Galatians 3:19 ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ
Where you have the preposition until followed by the Aorist Subjunctive.
In the verse from Galatians, we know that the seed (Jesus) already came.
So from my looking at that verse, I find no reason to believe that what Paul is describing as a temporary hardness had not already ended at the time that Paul wrote that.
What Bible translations do is make their own interpretation of what the word plērōma means. You find them saying things like "the full number", when it does not actually say anything like that in the Greek. It is a noun and is usually used to mean a patch. Since Paul is talking about grafting, in a horticultural sort of way, he could be just referring to the addition of the other ethnic groups to fill in the space left open by the removal of the Jews. This "patch" would have already been applied when Paul wrote Romans.
What your philosophy invented by Darby does is make it out, without any support from this chapter at least, that there is somehow a specific number of gentiles who need to enter the kingdom or whatever, and it is going to take a specific amount of time for it to be completed. Then, according to this philosophy, the Jew's hardness will be lifted. This is the heart of this cult of Dispensationalism and it just a flimsy theory.
The straightforward way to read this verse is, 'So that the gentiles could fill in the gap, the Jews were given a lag in responsiveness.'

reply to post by NOTurTypical

As concerning the good news of Jesus Christ salvation is offered to the Gentiles because of their unbelief in Him. But as far as the foreordination and election of God as sons according to the promise as Abraham's natural seed the are beloved for the Father (YHVH's) sake. The Jews are the bride of the Father. The church is the bride of the Son.

You are just making this all up, right?
You are saying that God split up into two so there could be two brides, one for the Father, and one for the Son.
Not that I am against people making up their own religions, but I think when people do that, they should qualify it by making a disclaimer like "This in no way represents any known religion and no recognized religion endorses this view. This opinion is mine alone and I feel free to believe whatever the hell I want to"

If you are going by what Romans 9 and 11 say, then the ones who were "beloved" were the forefathers, such as Abraham and Jacob. Paul says they (the descendants from those particular men) had the first opportunity to believe in Jesus, for those past people's sake, and not because God had any particular love for the current generation.
As for your mention of YHWH (or your personal variant), this was a made up name derived from an expression given by the angel who appeared to Moses, which was the I Am. Jesus is now the I Am, so it is not somehow magically the name of the Father. He is called, God, in the New Testament. What you are doing is anti-christian in making Jesus, the church, and Christianity of no value, and making the Old Testament really the one and only thing that in the end matters.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

God will never change His mind about his gifts or callings or people or in this case His gift and calling to Jacob (Israel).

Jesus was, just as promised, born from these people who were given the promise.
There is no other promise Paul is talking about here.
What your philosophy does is pretend that it means a bunch of other stuff not specified.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." ~ Romans 11:32

"Them all" = Israel, from verse 25.

"Upon all" = Israel, all of Israel will be saved

The "all" in verse 32 is not the same "all" that is in verse 25. You probably meant verse 26, since the word "all" does not appear in verse 25.
You really are putting on a big show but saying nothing since your argument is all a jumbled up mess.
The "all" in verse 32 is all people, period.
The bit about "all Israel will be saved" is not so much a statement of how much of Israel will be saved, but by what agency, which it describes, by way of OT prophecy, as Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

DO NOT be wise in your own conceits. It's time to repent.

I think the dictionary definition that fits that usage is:
2. Obsolete To understand; conceive.
www.thefreedictionary.com...
So I think this word applies well to this construct you are presenting to make conflations and misinterpretations to support your argument for the demise of the Christian Church.
You keep saying "blindness" when it does not say that (in the Greek text) in the verses you are referring to. I have to guess that it fits into some other part of this elaborate scheme, and that it was devised using the KJV, so you have to stick with that version to keep it from crumbling.
You are just jamming together completely unrelated bits of verses to make novel pseudo-verses like this:

Jesus says their blindness isn't permanent, "TILL" they (Israel) call upon Him and bless His Name. This is prophesied in the OT, in Hosea 5:15:

con·ceit·ed (kn-std)

adj.

Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of oneself; vain.

Conceitedness.

Forming one's own personal "organic" understanding of the Word of God instead of exactly what the plain text indicates by the Rhema revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
I find there to be ample evidence that there is a such thing as an invitation to the wedding feast. I also find there to be ample evidence that only those wise virgins with enough oil unto watching will be receiving invitations. This wedding feast is not the culmination of salvation but is a special gift for those who are watching and waiting and believe for a coming that precedes the first day of the millennial reign.

There is nothing wrong with the first half of this paragraph. Of course there is clear evidence for the "wedding feast on offer to the wise virgins", and I've never disputed that. Therefore your case gains nothing at all by repeating the point.
What you haven't got evidence for is detaching this from the "culmination of salvation", which is where traditional interpretation has always placed it.
I've already pointed out that your theory on this parable is based on a complete misunderstanding of Matthew ch25 v13, which you took to be a speech of the bridegroom to the foolish virgins, when it is really nothing of the kind.
You haven't been able to contest this point, but you're still putting out the doctrine which was based on the misunderstanding.
The ground underneath you has vanished, and you're trying to stand on thin air.

Ooooh I love the pun; trying to stand on thin air vs being caught up in the air with the Lord. Good one.

Listen to what the thin air is saying in Revelation 2:18-29:

(I paraphrase)........Thyatira (v18), you suffer sexual sin (v20-21). If you do not repent I will cast you into great tribulation (v22). For those of you who have repented or have never known the depths of it I will place on you no other burden. Hold fast that which you have til I come. (v24)

Clearly Thyatira is NOT cast into great tribulation whereas many others as John sees do come out of great tribulation hence a division. Note: White garments of the martyrs given to Sardis, and Laodicea.

I wish your heart peace with the matter, brother.

But if it is true, and invitations are handed out,someone is going to miss out on possibly the biggest blessing mankind will ever know simply because one has set the date for and only at the millennial reign.

Surely not.
Even if this Rapture does happen, it will only be the second biggest blessing.
The final culmination of salvation will be a greater one.
And also, even if the Rapture does happen, I repeat that there is no reason whatever why it should be restricted to those who are expecting it.
I am not expecting a Rapture.
Nevetheless, if I am wrong, and there is a Rapture, I would still expect to be raptured along with everybody else.
Simply because it would surely be based on faith in Christ, rather than faith in the Rapture as such.
In other words, not believing in the Rapture ought to be a win/win situation.

edit on 26-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I am compelled to base my expectations on what the Word says. Be watchful lest that day overtake you. Repent of sexual sins or be cast into great tribulation. The five wise went in to the marriage feast, the unwise did not. I will not lean not upon my own understanding but rather upon the truth I find in scripture. The Word is your evidence, Jesus has set forth the restrictions, do not harden your heart, brother, for these are the days of provocation.