Matthew 24:40 Is the rapture secret?
- Thread starter rrcn
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Lord used the examples of the days of Noah and the days of Lot in the context of the passage heading "The Coming of the Kingdom," examples in which there was no kingdom expected att. Those that were spared in those examples eventually flubbed up after they'd been delivered from destruction but at the coming of the kingdom, the word translated as "left" is also translated as to denote of sense of being "forgiven," let go, or discharged.
This computer has an awful time with lag when trying to view BibleHub in order to cut and paste the HELPS Word-studies it offers within the Strong's tab where paralambano is explained as 'from 3844 /para, "from close-alongside" and 2983 /lambano, "aggressively take" - to take (receive) by showing strong personal initiative.' And the Thayer's Greek Lexicon lists Luke 17:34-36 within the (1.) definition with the only explicit explanation as "in the passive" and, when comparing it to the word for "left," the only explicit explanation for the usage in that verse is "as opposed to paralambano."
And, as I was saying, Noah and Lot flubbed up (they were left in the corruptible state), but at the coming of the kingdom, no one left will be flubbing anything, if they have put on incorruptible.
This computer has an awful time with lag when trying to view BibleHub in order to cut and paste the HELPS Word-studies it offers within the Strong's tab where paralambano is explained as 'from 3844 /para, "from close-alongside" and 2983 /lambano, "aggressively take" - to take (receive) by showing strong personal initiative.' And the Thayer's Greek Lexicon lists Luke 17:34-36 within the (1.) definition with the only explicit explanation as "in the passive" and, when comparing it to the word for "left," the only explicit explanation for the usage in that verse is "as opposed to paralambano."
And, as I was saying, Noah and Lot flubbed up (they were left in the corruptible state), but at the coming of the kingdom, no one left will be flubbing anything, if they have put on incorruptible.
Jesus was taken to a place. Not a bad place ,to make a deal. Satan came as an angel of light .
so in your model, Before the flood ,half of what group is taken?
Are those taken, told to be ready?
Noah was gathered before the flood.
The ones taken are gathered also before the flood in Jesus analogy.
In the actual story, the ones left behind are destroyed.
By omitting components we can make it say whatever we want.
so in your model, Before the flood ,half of what group is taken?
Are those taken, told to be ready?
Noah was gathered before the flood.
The ones taken are gathered also before the flood in Jesus analogy.
In the actual story, the ones left behind are destroyed.
By omitting components we can make it say whatever we want.
Mat 24
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
I have never seen a postribber unpack that the ones taken are to watch and be ready.
But apparently postrib doctrine has a rapture postrib for half of earth's population, but at the same time think the church is raptured.
Combine that with the postrib teaching that the wicked are gathered first.
Imagine that. We supposedly witness a rapture of half the world's wicked (according to postrib rapture theory), and we stay. Then we are raptured, I suppose, as the " other person grinding in a mil", or the "other person sleeping in a bed".?
What a mess.
This is why I say when you start changing the Bible. You're gonna have to change 10 or 20 verses to match that false assumption.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
I have never seen a postribber unpack that the ones taken are to watch and be ready.
But apparently postrib doctrine has a rapture postrib for half of earth's population, but at the same time think the church is raptured.
Combine that with the postrib teaching that the wicked are gathered first.
Imagine that. We supposedly witness a rapture of half the world's wicked (according to postrib rapture theory), and we stay. Then we are raptured, I suppose, as the " other person grinding in a mil", or the "other person sleeping in a bed".?
What a mess.
This is why I say when you start changing the Bible. You're gonna have to change 10 or 20 verses to match that false assumption.
Which is analogous to the Rapture of the Church prior to the beginning of the Tribulation period. The Church is in Christ and lifted above the Earth just as Noah was in the Ark and lifted above the waters.
Then at the end of the Tribulation the Coming of the Son destroys the wicked by taking them away just as the flood took away the wicked in Noah's day.
The Flood was forty days and nights. The Tribulation is seven years.
To you maybe. Personally I prefer not to hang with people who want to lead me into sin. It means to come along side, which does not necessarily mean it has a good ending. You also seemed to miss the soldiers paralambano Jesus to the Cross.
When Jesus comes alongside the wicked at His coming, His brilliance will destroy them.
Then at the end of the Tribulation the Coming of the Son destroys the wicked by taking them away just as the flood took away the wicked in Noah's day.
The Flood was forty days and nights. The Tribulation is seven years.
To you maybe. Personally I prefer not to hang with people who want to lead me into sin. It means to come along side, which does not necessarily mean it has a good ending. You also seemed to miss the soldiers paralambano Jesus to the Cross.
When Jesus comes alongside the wicked at His coming, His brilliance will destroy them.
-
1
- Show all
You're the one who has made it a mess.
There is no gathering for the wicked. There is no Rapture for the wicked. Those in the flood were never gathered together, they were destroyed by the waters. Some would have been swept away, some would have drowned trapped in their hiding places but there is no gathering together in one place. They were taken by the flood just as unbelievers will be taken by Christ's return never to be seen again (at least not until the Final Judgement).
Jesus likens His Coming to a thief in the night but it is not believers who have to worry about having their possessions taken, it is the unbeliever who will be overcome and robbed of their lives. The believer is already the possession of Christ and is told to be alert (ie.make sure of their security by looking at our faith, is one deluding oneself?) You consistently ignore context and then try to make verses say what they're not saying and then accuse others of believing stuff that never even entered their head.
Matt.24:43-44
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him
To the best of my knowledge only the Church is ever referred to as being "caught up" (Raptured). No other group of believers are told this. Not Israel, not pre-flood or post-flood believers, nor Millennium believers, only the Church. As far as I can see, all other believers will be raised to life and given their new bodies while remaining on Earth. The Church's citizenship is in heaven, that's where they will dwell and all other believers will dwell on the new Earth. Why even have a New Earth if all believers are to dwell in Heaven?
There is no gathering for the wicked. There is no Rapture for the wicked. Those in the flood were never gathered together, they were destroyed by the waters. Some would have been swept away, some would have drowned trapped in their hiding places but there is no gathering together in one place. They were taken by the flood just as unbelievers will be taken by Christ's return never to be seen again (at least not until the Final Judgement).
Jesus likens His Coming to a thief in the night but it is not believers who have to worry about having their possessions taken, it is the unbeliever who will be overcome and robbed of their lives. The believer is already the possession of Christ and is told to be alert (ie.make sure of their security by looking at our faith, is one deluding oneself?) You consistently ignore context and then try to make verses say what they're not saying and then accuse others of believing stuff that never even entered their head.
Matt.24:43-44
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him
To the best of my knowledge only the Church is ever referred to as being "caught up" (Raptured). No other group of believers are told this. Not Israel, not pre-flood or post-flood believers, nor Millennium believers, only the Church. As far as I can see, all other believers will be raised to life and given their new bodies while remaining on Earth. The Church's citizenship is in heaven, that's where they will dwell and all other believers will dwell on the new Earth. Why even have a New Earth if all believers are to dwell in Heaven?
That you ask, "half of what group?" tells me that you don't consider this the separation of the wheats and tares, the goats and sheep.
This day will be great and terrible, where, like Abraham, the wheat would want to traverse the gulf to give water to the rich man, but it isn't permitted because God's judgment will be final. There will be no more time to buy oil for your lamps. If you consider that a half of a half is taken, then I have to assume that you hold a position where there will still wheat and tares to be sorted.
This day will be great and terrible, where, like Abraham, the wheat would want to traverse the gulf to give water to the rich man, but it isn't permitted because God's judgment will be final. There will be no more time to buy oil for your lamps. If you consider that a half of a half is taken, then I have to assume that you hold a position where there will still wheat and tares to be sorted.
That was not about the Rapture of the Church.
Jesus was speaking to Jews, teaching as a rabbi would.
He was not speaking to the Church.
For being a new creation in Christ would not happen until after he was resurrected, ascended, and glorified!
So?
Just before the Millennium starts?
After the Tribulation just ended?
All unbelieving Jews must be removed from the earth.
In that way? His reign in Jerusalem on the throne of David will be for only believing Jews.
I remember when I was first shown that.
I was gloriously dumbfounded!
Paul was to reveal the mystery of the Rapture to the church. Not Jesus!
Ephesians 3:1-5
Jesus was speaking to Jews, teaching as a rabbi would.
He was not speaking to the Church.
For being a new creation in Christ would not happen until after he was resurrected, ascended, and glorified!
So?
Just before the Millennium starts?
After the Tribulation just ended?
All unbelieving Jews must be removed from the earth.
In that way? His reign in Jerusalem on the throne of David will be for only believing Jews.
I remember when I was first shown that.
I was gloriously dumbfounded!
Paul was to reveal the mystery of the Rapture to the church. Not Jesus!
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you,
that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
which was not made known to people in other generations, as it has now been revealed by
the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets."
Ephesians 3:1-5
Well then hear it for the 1st time: Jesus called upon the Disciples of his time to be alert to the coming of a Roman army for judgment against unbelieving Israel. His disciples were not the objects of this wrath from God against Israel. Therefore, Jesus warned them to watch, and recognize the signs that they are coming. Then they should "flee to the mountains." Pretty simple stuff!
I don't know what you're talking about?
To start with, you certainly aren't presenting the standard Postrib position at all! I don't evn know where you get this from? So, mabe you better study the Postrib position to understand it as it really is? I would start with either George Ladd or Robert Gundry if you want to get heavy in the scholarship. But a simpler way would be to simply read Dan 7 and 2 Thes together in one sitting.
I don't know what you're talking about?
To start with, you certainly aren't presenting the standard Postrib position at all! I don't evn know where you get this from? So, mabe you better study the Postrib position to understand it as it really is? I would start with either George Ladd or Robert Gundry if you want to get heavy in the scholarship. But a simpler way would be to simply read Dan 7 and 2 Thes together in one sitting.
I know that position better than the adherents to it.
I can make YOUR presentation all day long.
It is a string of talking points.
I do not need any of my BIBLE Studies to present Your position.
Neither do I need your extra biblical dead church fathers opinions.
( that's right. You are hearing it for the first time! Invoking men to form your doctrine is revealing how weak that position is.)
I Know YOUR DOCTRINE very well.
I have taken the time to know all positions.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
You stab at my position with no knowledge of romans 11 or the bride/ groom dynamic.
My position on eschatology is viewed through the prism of the gathering of the bride.
My position is night and day different to postribbers mid tribbers and even most pretribbers.
Amil is on some other planet.
No point in even trying to agree with then on anything eschatological.
We will most likely never agree.
I am the only one here that has the bride/ bridegroom centering on the rapture.
So no, you are not telling me a thing about hearing anything for the first time.
I can make YOUR presentation all day long.
It is a string of talking points.
I do not need any of my BIBLE Studies to present Your position.
Neither do I need your extra biblical dead church fathers opinions.
( that's right. You are hearing it for the first time! Invoking men to form your doctrine is revealing how weak that position is.)
I Know YOUR DOCTRINE very well.
I have taken the time to know all positions.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
You stab at my position with no knowledge of romans 11 or the bride/ groom dynamic.
My position on eschatology is viewed through the prism of the gathering of the bride.
My position is night and day different to postribbers mid tribbers and even most pretribbers.
Amil is on some other planet.
No point in even trying to agree with then on anything eschatological.
We will most likely never agree.
I am the only one here that has the bride/ bridegroom centering on the rapture.
So no, you are not telling me a thing about hearing anything for the first time.
To be honest, you confuse me! When you say the "one coming* theory is implausible, what are you talking about? If you're talking about Preterism, then I agree--that is implausible.
But I've not been talking about that, and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't believe Jesus' eschatological Coming took place in 70 AD, as Full Preterists believe.
I'm not Pre-Wrath either, though that really is "cousin" to my own Postrib beliefs. I believe the 2nd Coming is not a Coming-in Stages. It is a Coming in a single hour on a single day with judgment coming upon the world, in answer to the saints' and Chrst's call for vengeance.
The judgment Jesus brings upon the Jews in 70 AD is a judgment Jesus orchestrates from heaven, from the right hand of God Almighty. The Coming from the clouds of heaven, spoken of in Dan 7 and in the Olivet Discourse takes place on the last day of the present age--not in 70 AD.
What mixes people up is the fact that Jesus placed side by side a comparison of his coming in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD with his coming in judgment upon the world at the end of the age. Whereas he gave a time stamp upon his judgment upon Israel, to be "in this generation," he placed no time stamp at all upon his 2nd Coming.
He did this not to make his Coming an "any-moment Coming," but rather, to keep the unbelieving world guessing as to how God develops history and ultimately brings judgment upon the world's collective choices.
But it is absolutely abundantly clear to me that Jesus' priority in his Olivet Discourse was to warn Israel that judgment was coming, and to warn his disciples to leave Jerusalem before God's wrath was poured out at that time. He indicated his 2nd Coming would take place way off in the distant future after some important things would have to happen first.
First, the Romans would gather around Jerusalem in a siege, 66-70 AD. They would gather like vultures around a corpse. Then some Jews would be taken to their death or into exile, while others would be left as slaves to man the fields.
Just as important as this, this event would lead to an *age-long Jewish Diaspora,* which ends only with the Return of Christ. This NT time period is called, by Jesus, the "Great Tribulation" or "Great Distress." It was specifically a judgment, or punishment, upon the Jewish People. It would figure as a pattern for future Gentile nations that become Christian, that if they don't live right, they also will be punished and destroyed.
So, you can see the clear separation between Christ's eschatological Coming at the end of the age, and his 1st Coming to bring punishment upon Israel? If you deny this, you'll have to deny what the Scriptures say, and what Jesus said, in my opinion.
But I've not been talking about that, and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't believe Jesus' eschatological Coming took place in 70 AD, as Full Preterists believe.
I'm not Pre-Wrath either, though that really is "cousin" to my own Postrib beliefs. I believe the 2nd Coming is not a Coming-in Stages. It is a Coming in a single hour on a single day with judgment coming upon the world, in answer to the saints' and Chrst's call for vengeance.
The judgment Jesus brings upon the Jews in 70 AD is a judgment Jesus orchestrates from heaven, from the right hand of God Almighty. The Coming from the clouds of heaven, spoken of in Dan 7 and in the Olivet Discourse takes place on the last day of the present age--not in 70 AD.
What mixes people up is the fact that Jesus placed side by side a comparison of his coming in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD with his coming in judgment upon the world at the end of the age. Whereas he gave a time stamp upon his judgment upon Israel, to be "in this generation," he placed no time stamp at all upon his 2nd Coming.
He did this not to make his Coming an "any-moment Coming," but rather, to keep the unbelieving world guessing as to how God develops history and ultimately brings judgment upon the world's collective choices.
But it is absolutely abundantly clear to me that Jesus' priority in his Olivet Discourse was to warn Israel that judgment was coming, and to warn his disciples to leave Jerusalem before God's wrath was poured out at that time. He indicated his 2nd Coming would take place way off in the distant future after some important things would have to happen first.
First, the Romans would gather around Jerusalem in a siege, 66-70 AD. They would gather like vultures around a corpse. Then some Jews would be taken to their death or into exile, while others would be left as slaves to man the fields.
Just as important as this, this event would lead to an *age-long Jewish Diaspora,* which ends only with the Return of Christ. This NT time period is called, by Jesus, the "Great Tribulation" or "Great Distress." It was specifically a judgment, or punishment, upon the Jewish People. It would figure as a pattern for future Gentile nations that become Christian, that if they don't live right, they also will be punished and destroyed.
So, you can see the clear separation between Christ's eschatological Coming at the end of the age, and his 1st Coming to bring punishment upon Israel? If you deny this, you'll have to deny what the Scriptures say, and what Jesus said, in my opinion.