Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know this is one of those subjects that I am open to look into all possible interpretation. The problem here is that the theory of the rapture of the church is not clearly stated or given in the bible, this interpretation is by implications. Rapture is one of many possible interpretations on what what the bible is telling us about the church of the last days. I mean when you really just think and work with just the givens in scripture then you see that there are infact many other possible interpretations here. For example the other day I found myself working with the possibility of a time just before the end when church age will come to an end, that is true christianity will be completely lost, just like with the generation after Joshua which in the bible we are told did not know God, so too it is possible that there will come a time when there will be a generation that does not know Christ. But that is just a theory I am working with. Any how my point is, unless the bible is most specific on a subject we should keep room for other possible interpretations. To me that is wisdom.
Try looking at from this standpoint. The Church on earth is called the body of Christ. The Church in heaven is called the bride of Christ. The Church needs to be taken up into Heaven before the tribulation can begin. When the Church leaves the world, the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit leaves with it so that the events of the tribulation can begin. But while the Church is in Heaven, she (yes I said she) is being prepared for the wedding to Christ after His second Advent. The Church returns with Christ as we see in 1 Thessalonians 3:13. ' ...at the coming of our Lord with all His saints.' For the Church to return with Christ, it first had to have been taken up into Heaven.
Also, the tribulation is referred to as 'the time of Jacobs trouble',
(Jeremiah 30:4-7.) The tribulation is all about Israel. Not the Church.
The Bible must be approached from a dispensational standpoint. God deals with Israel separately from His dealings with the Church. And He never deals with the Church and Israel at the same time. The Age of Israel still has seven years remaining to it that are yet to be fulfilled. Once the body of Christ is complete, it is taken up into Heaven, and God again turns His attention to Israel. This is the tribulation.
There are many passages in the Bible that distinquish between the rapture and the second Advent of Christ. They are shown in the website I provided:
One example is this :
At the rapture of the Church, the Church meets the Lord in the air. The Lord only comes to cloud level where we meet Him. 1 Thes 4:17.
But at the second Advent, Christ come all the way back to the earth. He sets foot on the Mount of Olives. Zech 14:4.
There are many more scriptures that plainly show the differences between the two events. There is no need to speculate about the matter at all.
One thing the website didn't show is the Scripture for the 3rd and 4th stages of the first resurrection. Here they are.
The third stage of the first resurrection: Revelation 20:4 These are the martyrs of the tribulation being resurrected at the end of the tribulation along with the Old Testament saints.
The forth stage of the first resurrection: Revelation 20:5 '
The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.'
Notice that there is a thousand year difference between verse 24 and verse 25. And notice that after the forth stage of the first resurrection is completed, the verse then tells you, 'This is the first resurrection.
So we have four different stages in the first resurrection. 1) Christ.
2) The Church 3)Old Testament saints and tribulational martyrs.
4) The Millennial saints at the end of the Millennium.
In Revelation 20:11-15, The Second Resurrection takes place. This is the resurrection of all unbelievers who ever lived in all dispensations, being judged and comdemned to the lake of fire.
If you haven't already gone through the entire website, it would benefit you to do so.
Pre trib...mid trib post trib pre mil post mil amil and finally...the seceding to Full preterist eventually are the Partial PRets....whew! What a bunch of confused saints! How did it ever get so bad...a fully divided church......
Now the Full Preterists stand undivided.....that is the ...hint hint...Holy Spirit at work.
I am sorry...I think I am a little exhausted in breaking it to you Mike fully...but the net is out there...I suggest to start at these places
There you will get your fill, and as time ticks on, when you stop pressing your own paradigm into the text, you will become a Full Preterist like everyone else is becoming based on...Sola Scriptura.
Pre trib...mid trib post trib pre mil post mil amil and finally...the seceding to Full preterist eventually are the Partial PRets....whew! What a bunch of confused saints! How did it ever get so bad...a fully divided church......
Now the Full Preterists stand undivided.....that is the ...hint hint...Holy Spirit at work.
I am sorry...I think I am a little exhausted in breaking it to you Mike fully...but the net is out there...I suggest to start at these places
There you will get your fill, and as time ticks on, when you stop pressing your own paradigm into the text, you will become a Full Preterist like everyone else is becoming based on...Sola Scriptura.
Ciao for now...and God bless you.
Well now.. admittedly there is nothing to be divided about in full preterism....it is done.
The where, when, how, and why are not in question anymore in full preterism, where as they are up to interpretation in the rest.
Still, in trying to prove the rest.. one WILL eventually come to realize full preterism is as you said.
There is no need for this "jump" or "shift." You are inferring something that does not have indication in the scripture.
There is nothing to be inferred by the person reading the verse.
Matthew 28: 52-54 says it plainly, 'and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Verse 54 then shifts back to the moment right after Christ died. 54) Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happenng, became very frightened and said, ''Truly this was the Son of God!''
So there you have it. The passage shifts from the Cross in v52, to after the resurrection in v53, and back to the Cross in v 54.
All without any inference on the part of the reader.
There is nothing to be inferred by the person reading the verse.
Matthew 28: 52-54 says it plainly, 'and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Verse 54 then shifts back to the moment right after Christ died. 54) Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happenng, became very frightened and said, ''Truly this was the Son of God!''
So there you have it. The passage shifts from the Cross in v52, to after the resurrection in v53, and back to the Cross in v 54.
All without any inference on the part of the reader.
I'm not spending any more time with you on this.
Ok I realize that you don't want to spend more time on this.. You have that right and I respect that. However, for those keeping up with this thread I will again show the problem with your time shift here.
vs 52 has the people being raised without a time shift... vs 53 repeats that people are raised and you say in a time shift.. yet these are one event right? so either the veil was torn and earthquakes happened with the raising or they didn't. The veil was torn when Jesus' spirit left him and his body was still on the cross. and the earthquakes and the people raised. There is no need to believe this didn't happen so why deny it and put a shift of time in there? Jesus was raised in spirit yet his body remained on the cross...
I don't understand the need in context for a time shift... and if what I am saying is true, how does that affect the rest of what you believe? You have already stated that Christ was raised spiritually yet now you want to insist that his body was resuscitated...
I don't get it.
Last edited by katjonjj; 09-12-2009 at 02:30 PM..
Reason: grammar
Mike, the point being made above concerning the graves and saints is plainly stated by Jesus Himself, in which Paul, elaborated in many words all over his epistles:
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Ok I realize that you don't want to spend more time on this.. You have that right and I respect that. However, for those keeping up with this thread I will again show the problem with your time shift here.
vs 52 has the people being raised without a time shift... vs 53 repeats that people are raised and you say in a time shift.. yet these are one event right? so either the veil was torn and earthquakes happened with the raising or they didn't. The veil was torn when Jesus' spirit left him and his body was still on the cross. and the earthquakes and the people raised. There is no need to believe this didn't happen so why deny it and put a shift of time in there? Jesus was raised in spirit yet his body remained on the cross...
I don't understand the need in context for a time shift... and if what I am saying is true, how does that effect the rest of what you believe? You have already stated that Christ was raised spiritually yet now you want to insist that his body was resuscitated...
I don't get it.
You are neglecting the fact that three days later his tomb was found empty. So that his body was literally raised. His corpse was literally raised and the stone that covered the tomb was moved. The Pharisees had to bribe the roman Guards to spread rumors that the disciples had stolen the body ... Remember? That is not simply a spiritual resurrection, that is a literal bodily resurrection.
Try looking at from this standpoint. The Church on earth is called the body of Christ. The Church in heaven is called the bride of Christ. The Church needs to be taken up into Heaven before the tribulation can begin.
Can you please provided scripture that supports any kind of rapture theory.
Quote:
The Bible must be approached from a dispensational standpoint. God deals with Israel separately from His dealings with the Church. And He never deals with the Church and Israel at the same time. The Age of Israel still has seven years remaining to it that are yet to be fulfilled. Once the body of Christ is complete, it is taken up into Heaven, and God again turns His attention to Israel. This is the tribulation.
Why because your pastors, preachers and teachers told you so? Like you, I used to be a hard core Futurist...that is until I started asking some hard questions to supposed pastors, preachers and teachers who couldn't answer them without making up some unbiblical explanation. When you have to start making up fantastical notions as to what scripture means...it's time to walk away and find the truth. I'm going to challenge you to study all the views out there with an open mind and then decide for yourself what you should be believing...you will be surprised that scripture is not that hard to understand and will flow together naturally, without any unnatural interpretation, and will make perfect and complete sense to you.
And I don't even want to go down the road of "God has a separate plan for the Jews"...that is the most unbiblical nonsense out there. The Jews, as a race, were completely destroyed and obliterated in 70 AD and that's a fact. God took their kingdom away and gave it to those who believe in Christ and there is not one scripture showing He intends to give it back to them. The people practicing the religion of Judaism today are not the Jews of the past. And, the only way into the Kindgom of God is through Christ.
You are neglecting the fact that three days later his tomb was found empty. So that his body was literally raised. His corpse was literally raised and the stone that covered the tomb was moved. The Pharisees had to bribe the roman Guards to spread rumors that the disciples had stolen the body ... Remember? That is not simply a spiritual resurrection, that is a literal bodily resurrection.
In his post he said the OT saints were resuscitated, and Jesus was resurrected. There was a difference. I am saying that using his definitions Jesus' body was raised three days later and therefore he was resuscitated not resurrected. You could say that it was saints who followed Jesus that were raised but the verse says many were raised. and how many saints were there that had died recently yet were saints in Jesus' short ministry on earth...
Can both have occurred? His spirit resurrected as well as his body resuscitated? Sure! I have no problem with that. In fact Jesus predicted both.
OT saints however had been dead for quite some time so I can't think they are resuscitated only to die again later so they can be included in the resurrection that is soon to come that hasn't come yet...
Does that make sense?
Last edited by katjonjj; 09-12-2009 at 02:49 PM..
Reason: added something
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
