Less well-known Rapture verses. The case for the Rapture is compelling.

[cv5]

Why did none of the church believe this until John Darby?

I think you better dig dig into the books and discover your Church history my friend.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of those dogeared excuses. At the same time I am thrilled that I do understand the pre-trib rapture. And you have no idea how thrilled I actually am. Thrilled and relieved.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

That may have not helped him but I find this connection to Isaiah 27 is absolutely thrilling. Probably the best thing that I've learned in months to be honest. It has made my day believe me. Much obliged. Again.

Glad to know it. = ) Thanks for sharing.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why did none of the church believe this until John Darby?

Do you know this for a fact? The apostles and the New Testament churches believed in an imminent Rapture. Gradually, many Bible truths and Gospel truths were either neglected or rejected. Also improper interpretation of the Scriptures led to many errors, particularly as related to Bible prophecy.

 

[Kolistus]

The Antediluvians had zero evidence the Flood would actually occur and their choice to exercise unbelief resulted in total ignorance that they were already lost for 7 days prior to the first drops of rain hitting the ground. They "knew not until the Flood came and took them all away."

According to you Jesuit Futurists, those "left behind" will not only know full well that Judgment surely will come, but will know exactly when it comes.

Seriously, my confused Jesuit Futurist friends...can't you see how utterly opposite the experience of the Antediluvians is compared to your Jesuit interpretation of prophecy?

What do you believe about this?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

No not really. They were protected yes, nevertheless smack dab in the middle of the judgments. They were literally surrounded by then. They were eyewitnesses to it. They were geographically in proximity to them.

Not so with the rapture. We are taken OUT OF the proximity the observation the perception of any wrath. In fact we are in heaven singing songs of praise while all of this is going on.

Thank you for stating quite clearly that you reject plain Biblical teachings in favour of extra-biblical doctrine.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I think you better dig dig into the books and discover your Church history my friend.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of those dogeared excuses. At the same time I am thrilled that I do understand the pre-trib rapture. And you have no idea how thrilled I actually am. Thrilled and relieved.

How about rather than be smug and insulting pointing to other teachers further back than Darby? Because I'm not finding any. Rather I am finding that he was excommunicated from the Anglican Church, and started his own church. That the only people who picked up on his "new approach" was the revivalists in America, who were themselves teaching bad theology.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Do you know this for a fact? The apostles and the New Testament churches believed in an imminent Rapture. Gradually, many Bible truths and Gospel truths were either neglected or rejected. Also improper interpretation of the Scriptures led to many errors, particularly as related to Bible prophecy.

They believed in the imminent return of Christ, and it's clear. As we also should believe in an imminent return of Christ,

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Keep in mind that, biblically speaking, the word "return" speaks of His Second Coming to the earth; and that when pre-tribbers use the term "imminent," they do not mean by that that Jesus could "return" at any second throughout history; Instead, what is meant (by their use of that term) is that "no [biblically-defined] SIGNS precede (and thus point toward) "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" event (ALL of them FOLLOW "our Rapture" and lead up to [and point toward] His Second Coming to the earth).




[IOW, a great many prophetic events must unfold upon the earth prior to His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19 (OTOH... not so, regarding the lead-up to "our Rapture" event)]

 

[Nehemiah6]

They believed in the imminent return of Christ, and it's clear. As we also should believe in an imminent return of Christ,

There is a HUGE difference between the "return" of Christ, or more correctly the Second Coming of Christ (for judgment), and the Resurrection/Rapture (for salvation). And that is very clear from Scripture. So the apostles were not confused about this matter.

 

[Runningman]

I'll just stick with the Bible's description of the coming of Christ and rapture immediately post-tribulation:

Matt. 24:29-31
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:24-27
24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Note that "the four winds" speaks of where they've been "scattered"... and that "[FROM the uttermost part of the earth] TO the uttermost part of heaven" (in this latter half phrase) is not speaking of the "destination-location," as though "merely the entry-way of Heaven" is not enough, or that "merely the front parlor of Heaven" is not enough, but the destination-location is "TO the UTTERMOST part of Heaven"...no... it doesn't mean that.

The entire phrase said altogether simply means "from the extremities" (no place left out, from where they will be GATHERED--like saying, "they'll be gathered FROM here TO Timbuktu is not saying the "destination-location" is "Timbuktu"... rather, that they will be gathered "from ALL OVER"--not a place left out!)


See how similar phrasing is used in Jeremiah 49:36 -

"I will bring the four winds against Elam from the four corners of the heavens, and I will scatter them to all these winds. There will not be a nation to which Elam’s exiles will not go."

 

[FreeGrace2]

Let me give you a simple scenario what I mean.

If the Tribulation is 7 years, someone believed in year 1, following Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4 that Christ died for his sins and rose again on the 3rd day.

Was he saved right there and then in year 1? You have to say yes, since you believe it is salvation by faith in Christ alone.

Of course I believe that because the Bible very clearly indicates that.

Later on, in year 5, he decided that participating in the economic system is important for him, and decides then to take the mark of the beast,

Is he still saved then? If not, do you think he has

• Lost his salvation that he received in year 1? or
• Was never saved in the first place, even in year 1?

You understand now what I am trying to say?

I understand that you still fail to see my point. You ASSUME a true believer can take the mark. I believe that God in His infinite wisdom won't allow that to happen. So the various plagues will be used to remove those believers BEFORE the mark is available.

Why can't you just address my point?

Do you believe what Jesus said in John 10:28 or not? He said He gives eternal life, and recipients SHALL NEVER PERISH.

If you believe that salvation can be lost, then you CANNOT honestly believe what Jesus said.

I KNOW that salvation cannot be lost because of what Jesus said. When a person believes, they POSSESS eternal life, per John 5:24. And those who have been given (possess) eternal life shall NEVER perish.

It couldn't be any more clear than that.

Now, since it seems reasonable to me that you aren't going to be dissuaded from your view, where is the verse that in very clear and plain words teaches that eternal life can be revoked, removed, forfeited, given away, lost or any of the other silly things used by those who claim that there is no eternal security?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I hold that one view is true.......the pretrib rapture view.

Why does anyone believe a view that has NO SUPPORT from Scripture?

If the pre-trib view is correct, where is the U-turn verse?

Come on, be reasonable. If true, there would be a verse.

The alternative views clearly don't work on any conceivable level.

Nice generalization. But the post trib view works on every level. You just don't see it or want to understand it.

The main failing being the incapacity to understand the difference between the Church and Israel. And a woeful misapprehension of prophecy.

There's some of your confusion. The difference between the Church and Israel is real, burt irrelevant to the resurrection/rapture of ALL saints.

And the NT teaches that it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think you better dig dig into the books and discover your Church history my friend.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of those dogeared excuses.

What's really "sick and tired" is the total FAILURE of the pre-trib view to be supported from Scripture.

Where is your U-turn verse?

At the same time I am thrilled that I do understand the pre-trib rapture. And you have no idea how thrilled I actually am. Thrilled and relieved.

Uh, what's gonna happen to you faith when you begin to realize that you are smack dab in the Trib?

Look, if I'm wrong, and raptured before the Trib, the smile on my face will be at least as big as the smile on your face.

But, if (and I am - Greek first class condition) I'm right, how well will your faith hold up since you seem convinced that Jesus will pick you up and return to heaven before the Trib?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[...] pointing to other teachers further back than Darby? Because I'm not finding any. Rather I am finding that he was excommunicated from the Anglican Church, and started his own church. That the only people who picked up on his "new approach" was the revivalists in America, who were themselves teaching bad theology.

Someone had pointed out...

John Gill (1697-1771) -

[quoting excerpt (not saying I agree with every jot and tittle, but doesn't he sound like he's saying similar??)]

"to meet the Lord in the air; whither he will descend, and will then clear the regions of the air of Satan, and his posse of devils, which now rove about there, watching all opportunities, and taking all advantages to do mischief on earth; [...] here Christ will stop, and will be visible to all, and as easily discerned by all, good and bad, as the body of the sun at noonday; as yet he will not descend on earth, because it is not fit to receive him; but when that and its works are burnt up, and it is purged and purified by fire, and become a new earth, he will descend upon it, and dwell with his saints in it: and this suggests another reason why he will stay in the air, and his saints shall meet him there, and whom he will take up with him into the third heaven, till the general conflagration and burning of the world is over, and to preserve them from it; and then shall all the elect of God descend from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband, and he with them, and the tabernacle of God shall be with men; see Revelation 21:1. The resurrection by the Mahometans is called (q), "a meeting of God", or a going to meet God:

"and so shall we ever be with the Lord; now the saints are with him at times, and have communion with him, but not always; but then they shall be ever with him; wherever he is; first in the air, where they shall meet him; then in the third heaven, where they shall go up with him; then on earth, where they shall descend and reign with him a thousand years; and then in the ultimate glory to all eternity: and this will be the issue and accomplishment of the counsel and covenant of grace, of the sufferings and death of Christ, and of his preparations and prayers."

- 1 Thessalonians 4 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)

[end quoting]


____________

Do I have his dates of birth and death correct??

 

[Guojing]

Of course I believe that because the Bible very clearly indicates that.


I understand that you still fail to see my point. You ASSUME a true believer can take the mark. I believe that God in His infinite wisdom won't allow that to happen. So the various plagues will be used to remove those believers BEFORE the mark is available.

Why can't you just address my point?

Do you believe what Jesus said in John 10:28 or not? He said He gives eternal life, and recipients SHALL NEVER PERISH.

If you believe that salvation can be lost, then you CANNOT honestly believe what Jesus said.

I KNOW that salvation cannot be lost because of what Jesus said. When a person believes, they POSSESS eternal life, per John 5:24. And those who have been given (possess) eternal life shall NEVER perish.

It couldn't be any more clear than that.

Now, since it seems reasonable to me that you aren't going to be dissuaded from your view, where is the verse that in very clear and plain words teaches that eternal life can be revoked, removed, forfeited, given away, lost or any of the other silly things used by those who claim that there is no eternal security?

What do you mean by "So the various plagues will be used to remove those believers BEFORE the mark is available"?

As for your point about John 10:28, eternal life is only given to Israel at the 2nd coming of Jesus, as Peter stated in Acts 3:19-21, that will only happen after the Tribulation.

Of course, once any Jew receive eternal life then, they will not lose it, hence they shall never perish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nehemiah6 said:
Do you know this for a fact? The apostles and the New Testament churches believed in an imminent Rapture. Gradually, many Bible truths and Gospel truths were either neglected or rejected. Also improper interpretation of the Scriptures led to many errors, particularly as related to Bible prophecy.

They believed in the imminent return of Christ, and it's clear. As we also should believe in an imminent return of Christ,

This is hardly evidence for a pre-trib view.

Peter clarified everything when he wrote "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" 2 Pet 3:8.

iow, Jesus has only been gone for "a few days". So this "imminency" defense falls apart when considering time from the Lord's perspective.

So when He said He was coming back soon, the early believers took Him literally. But we know better.

And Peter clarified what he was talking about in the very next verse:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

I believe the pattern of the Genesis account in chapter 1 reflects the length of time of the human race. God worked for 6 days, and then rested the 7th. The human race has been around for 6,000 years, and there is a "rest" which we call the Millennial Reign of Christ. That's what Peter was referring to.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What do you mean by "So the various plagues will be used to remove those believers BEFORE the mark is available"?

Do you not realize that the plagues will KILL people? That's one way God disciplines His people, but simply taking them out of the world. That's what happened to Ananias and Saphira. And could have happened to the incestuous guy in 1 Cor 5:5. And did happen to lots of Jews in the desert, per 1 Cor 10:6, 11.

As for your point about John 10:28, eternal life is only given to Israel at the 2nd coming of Jesus, as Peter stated in Acts 3:19-21, that will only happen after the Tribulation.

So you don't believe John 10:28. That verse applies to EVERYONE who believes. But at least you have provided evidence of your great confusion.

Of course, once any Jew receive eternal life then, they will not lose it, hence they shall never perish.

And it is reasonable to conclude that you also don't believe John 5:24 either.

But I do understand that's the only way you can defend your view.

 

[Guojing]

Do you not realize that the plagues will KILL people? That's one way God disciplines His people, but simply taking them out of the world. That's what happened to Ananias and Saphira. And could have happened to the incestuous guy in 1 Cor 5:5. And did happen to lots of Jews in the desert, per 1 Cor 10:6, 11.


So you don't believe John 10:28. That verse applies to EVERYONE who believes. But at least you have provided evidence of your great confusion.


And it is reasonable to conclude that you also don't believe John 5:24 either.

But I do understand that's the only way you can defend your view.

Oh, so you mean you believe God will kill any believer before they can exercise the choice to take the mark during the Tribulation.

Wow, that is a very strong doctrine. You don't think it is easier to believe that salvation during the Tribulation will require faith AND works, as stated in Revelation 14:12?

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Indeed Enoch was not post-flood or mid-food he was pre-flood.

When we were talking about this yesterday, it made me remember and think about his "name meaning" ('dedication' or 'initiation')... and as I was thinking about the word 'dedicate' and a particular scripture reference, I happened to come across the following quote (below) by Augustine that was along the lines of what was going through my head at that time (not that I would endorse Augustine's Amillennial-type stuff, or its faulty chronology [let alone his typical method of interpretation, etc], but just that I thought it was interesting that my thoughts were trying to formulate something akin to what he says here, about Enoch--see quote below, after the verse I was thinking about first):


Deuteronomy 20:5 - [related to the name "Enoch" meaning "dedicated" or "initiated"]

"And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate [H2596 - ḥānaḵ] it."


- H2596 (verb) - "to initiate, a house (that is to dedicate, or to commence to use)."

____________

[note my caveat at top...; quoting]

The Significance of Enoch's Translation.

City of God — St. Augustine

"For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name "Dedication" in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language."

[end quoting]


(made me also recall the posts I've made re: Heb9:8-9a saying, "...the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness] yet having A STANDING [ / STASIS / STASIN ], which is a parable for the present time")

The tradition is that he was was born on Pentecost and was raptured on his birthday.

I've heard that too, but I would have no way of knowing whether or not it's true, so I don't really dwell on that particular train of thought, personally... lol