If I remember correctly, I believe we agree on much - so - please do not react too quickly at what I am going to say...
First of all, if you do not define 'rapture' as the "catching up" (event) - absolutely no more and no less - but, that exactly - then, you are in error. And, if so - you do not have to be in error just because the Dispensationalist crowd is in error - because they wish to define it to include all sorts of other stuff.
In other words - do not use the 'pre-trib' rapture view definition; rather, insist upon the true definition of the word according to its proper usage in scripture - [the] "catching up" - that's it - not including all of that other stuff - period.
(Yes - I know that the word 'rapture' is not in scripture - but, I am referring to how it is applied to 'catching up'.)
~
According to the explanation in your third paragraph (above) - the last two sentences of your first paragraph should really be:
"Isn't that the rapture? Yes - but, that's a classic twist created by the Rapture Cult."
Because - you are still saying that it is in fact the rapture - even though you see it "in reverse" with regard to 'taken'/'left'.
~
Now - please consider the following very carefully - do not react - think about it for a while...
Read this very carefully. (copied from post #87 in this thread)
Matthew 24:
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
30 And 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. 31 And 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.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 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.
From these verses in this passage, we can determine:
1) It is talking to Christians about Christians.
2) It is talking about the Second Coming of Christ.
3) It is talking about the rapture.
4) It is Christians that are being 'taken' ("raptured") in verses 40-41.
With regard to the comparison being made, what verses 37-39 are saying does not include what verses 40-41 are saying.
The comparison is only about the 'unexpectedness' of the event. It is not an "in every detail" kind of comparison.
The comparison is "defined" by verses 38-39. You cannot "shove" verses 40-41 into it. That is not valid.
Verses 40-41 are not part of the comparison to the Noe/ark/flood referenced event.
~
These verses very clearly show that the 'elect' are 'taken' - there are no two ways about it.
You are correct in saying:
(italic bold mine)
However, there is no direct comparison between the 'rapture' at His return and the Noah story.
This is assumed by folks who are not paying attention to what it really actually says.
It is a misinterpretation of scripture.
And, folks in this thread are arguing over it needlessly.
~
If the question "Where, Lord?" in Luke 17:37 is all you have to base your conclusion on - consider the possibility that you may be missing something...
What if the question is simply being asked in the sense of:
"Where is this going to happen, Lord?"
(rather than specifically about who is 'taken' - for which there is no direct indication)
The point is...
All scripture must agree.
Do not be too focused on one or two trees - back up and look at the whole forest.
First of all, if you do not define 'rapture' as the "catching up" (event) - absolutely no more and no less - but, that exactly - then, you are in error. And, if so - you do not have to be in error just because the Dispensationalist crowd is in error - because they wish to define it to include all sorts of other stuff.
In other words - do not use the 'pre-trib' rapture view definition; rather, insist upon the true definition of the word according to its proper usage in scripture - [the] "catching up" - that's it - not including all of that other stuff - period.
(Yes - I know that the word 'rapture' is not in scripture - but, I am referring to how it is applied to 'catching up'.)
~
According to the explanation in your third paragraph (above) - the last two sentences of your first paragraph should really be:
"Isn't that the rapture? Yes - but, that's a classic twist created by the Rapture Cult."
Because - you are still saying that it is in fact the rapture - even though you see it "in reverse" with regard to 'taken'/'left'.
~
Now - please consider the following very carefully - do not react - think about it for a while...
Read this very carefully. (copied from post #87 in this thread)
Matthew 24:
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
30 And 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. 31 And 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.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 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.
From these verses in this passage, we can determine:
1) It is talking to Christians about Christians.
2) It is talking about the Second Coming of Christ.
3) It is talking about the rapture.
4) It is Christians that are being 'taken' ("raptured") in verses 40-41.
With regard to the comparison being made, what verses 37-39 are saying does not include what verses 40-41 are saying.
The comparison is only about the 'unexpectedness' of the event. It is not an "in every detail" kind of comparison.
The comparison is "defined" by verses 38-39. You cannot "shove" verses 40-41 into it. That is not valid.
Verses 40-41 are not part of the comparison to the Noe/ark/flood referenced event.
~
These verses very clearly show that the 'elect' are 'taken' - there are no two ways about it.
You are correct in saying:
(italic bold mine)
However, there is no direct comparison between the 'rapture' at His return and the Noah story.
This is assumed by folks who are not paying attention to what it really actually says.
It is a misinterpretation of scripture.
And, folks in this thread are arguing over it needlessly.
~
If the question "Where, Lord?" in Luke 17:37 is all you have to base your conclusion on - consider the possibility that you may be missing something...
What if the question is simply being asked in the sense of:
"Where is this going to happen, Lord?"
(rather than specifically about who is 'taken' - for which there is no direct indication)
The point is...
All scripture must agree.
Do not be too focused on one or two trees - back up and look at the whole forest.
That would be pre-tribulation because Jesus HIMSELF tells you so that you don't have to miss it.
There's free Commerce,
There's marriage,
there's betrothal.
There's every day life
there's normal life
and that setting is in no way.
Friendly do your doctrine
