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.
No, it wouldn't. The rapture is a teaching concerning how the church-age will end. But the New Testament church was not revealed in Old Testament times. There would have been no logical reason to mention how the church-age would end when the church wasn't even revealed in the Old Testament. The first mention of the New Testament church (the body of Christ) was made by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus spoke of the church as a future event. The New Testament church began on the day of Pentecost 50 days after Jesus was resurrected. It is spoken of in Acts chapter two. During the church-age, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit indwell all believers- that is what makes the New Testament church the body of Christ. This universal indwelling of all believers did not exist prior to the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus.
I QUOTE ALOT OF THE WORLD BECAUSE I LIKE TO READ HIS WORDS IN CONTEXT.. TO PROVE MY POINT IS IN CONTEXT ALSO.
WELL I THINK THE NEW COVENANT HE WOULD MAKE WAS REVEALED OR AT LEAST ALLUDED TO ANYWAY..
Jer 31:27
¶
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
Jer 31:28
“As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the LORD.
Jer 31:29
“In those days they will not say again,
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are [fn]set on edge.’
Jer 31:30
“But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be [fn]set on edge.
Jer 31:31
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
THEN THAT NEW COVENANT IS MENTIONED HERE MANY TIMES .. LINKING THIS INTO THE SAME THOUGHT.
2Co 3:6
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb 8:8
For finding fault with them, He says,
“BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
[fn]WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
Heb 8:13
[fn]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [fn]ready to disappear.
Heb 9:15
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. AND SPEAKING OF THE NEED FOR BLOOD OF INNOCENT LAMBS.. IS HOW IT ALLUDES HERE TO ABEL.. FOR that WHO DEMAND THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE BLOOD OF ANIMALS.. BUT AGAIN THE BLOOD OF AN INNOCENT IS MENTIONED HERE . ABELS BLOOD WOULD BE AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION.. MAYBE JESUS BLOOD HAD TO BE GREATER AND MORE INNOCENT TO EVEN REDEEM/ BUY BACK ??? ABLES BLOOD.. AN INNOCENT. THE SHEEP NEVER DID IT ... I BELEIVE THAT SHEEP BLOOD ONLY DELAYED THE FORGIVENESS / STORED IT.
All ate the same spiritual food,and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, AND THE ROCK WAS THE CHRIST;
The rock they did not recognize to be the Christ unlike those today who "believe" Christ. There is no rapture, it would be in the OT if there is a rapture.
That has nothing to do with the New Testament church. Again, there was no universal indwelling of either Jesus or of the Holy Spirit among believers in the Old Testament. Not until the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus did that occur.
Since the church is not an Old Testament teaching, neither is the rapture which pertains to the church. Again, as you were shown, Jesus spoke of the church as being a future development. It didn't exist until the day of Pentecost. It is the church which is spoken of as being a new creation - 2 Corinthians 5:17.
But we both know that you will simply continue to deny the rapture even though Paul wrote about in in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.
You argue against things of which you have no understanding whatsoever.
The church of the Gentiles was mentioned in the old testament per Zechariah 11:7, along with it's two leading shepherds, Paul (Zechariah 11:10), and Peter (Zechariah 11:16-17). Judas Iscariot was thrown in for a bonus (Zechariah 11:12-13). Peter, the head steward of the "royal household", the one with the keys of the house of David, and his successor, the pope were both mentioned in Isaiah 22:15-25. It ends poorly for all of the above. The Gentile church/"flock was doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7).
No, it is not. Those passages have nothing to do with the church. You're reading into those passages something that isn't there.
No, it is not. Those passages have nothing to do with the church. You're reading into those passages something that isn't there.
Well apparently Matthew 27:9-10 quotes from Zechariah 11:12-13 with respect to the 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11:8, who died in the same generation as the other two shepherds, and who is Judas Iscariot.
It would be getting off topic to go to far down that rabbit hole.
Well apparently Matthew 27:9-10 quotes from Zechariah 11:12-13 with respect to the 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11:8, who died in the same generation as the other two shepherds, and who is Judas Iscariot.
It would be getting off topic to go to far down that rabbit hole.
The New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament many times and in different ways for different purposes. That has nothing to with the fact that the dispensation of the church simply was not revealed in Old Testament times. As Paul said in Colossians 1:26, the church is a mystery that was hidden in long ages past but is now manifested to His (God's) saints.
The "rapture" theme came from some British young girl around the 18th century.
My comment is NOT about believing in the rapture or not. That's up to each individual to decide. What my comment IS about is FACTS. And what you said is NOT factual.
Don't simply parrot what you've heard because it backs up your own opinion or viewpoint. Do your research for yourself. It's been irrefutably debunked with documented history that the pre-tribulation rapture has been taught throughout history. This information is available to anyone willing to learn the truth.
This false claim came about because of a book written by Barbara Rossing. But, when you actually examine the statements of the girl who supposedly started the rapture teaching, you'll find that what she said actually lines up with the POST-tribulation viewpoint.
Even so, putting what I've already said aside, let's deal strictly with documented history:
In 150 AD, the Rapture idea was preached by the Shepherd of Hermas.
In 270 AD, Victorinus, the Bishop of Pettau, a Catholic leader preached it.
In 350 AD, Ephraim the Syrian
In 400 AD, Jerome in the Latin vulgate (in the Catholic Bible)
Then there were the 1,000 years of the dark ages when it wasn't taught because the times were so bleak that people had lost their hope. (Man's fault, not God's.) After that time, the teaching of the rapture began resurfacing. Again, from documented history:
In 1304 AD, Reverend Dolcino proclaimed the Pre-trib Rapture.
In 1400 AD, Bible translations in the native tongues led to a new propagation of the Pre-trib Rapture.
In 1627 AD, Joseph Mede
1627 AD Increase Mather
1687 AD, Peter Jurieu
1700 AD, John Asgill
1738 AD, Philip Doddridge
1748 AD, John Gill
1763 AD, James McKnight
1744 AD, Morgan Edwards
1792 AD, Thomas Scott
And then in 1830 AD, John Darby.
The rapture theory has been historically taught, and verified through documentation, from 150 AD onward. Before that, there's the scriptures. And it's there that each person must decide for themselves what to believe.
Again, my point is this: Don't parrot something you haven't researched yourself just because it "backs-up" what you personally think. The problem in the majority of the Christianity forum is that people aren't doing that. They're arguing opinions and feelings. But opinions and feelings aren't facts.
That has nothing to do with the New Testament church. Again, there was no universal indwelling of either Jesus or of the Holy Spirit among believers in the Old Testament. Not until the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus did that occur.
Since the church is not an Old Testament teaching, neither is the rapture which pertains to the church. Again, as you were shown, Jesus spoke of the church as being a future development. It didn't exist until the day of Pentecost. It is the church which is spoken of as being a new creation - 2 Corinthians 5:17.
But we both know that you will simply continue to deny the rapture even though Paul wrote about in in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.
You argue against things of which you have no understanding whatsoever.
Stop calling it the New Testament church, it is unscriptural, you are only saying it to support the doctrine of men. The rock who is Jesus Christ was with Israel the church in the wilderness. You are arguing against anything that is not in with your doctrines, you just don't see it.
My comment is NOT about believing in the rapture or not. That's up to each individual to decide. What my comment IS about is FACTS. And what you said is NOT factual.
Don't simply parrot what you've heard because it backs up your own opinion or viewpoint. Do your research for yourself. It's been irrefutably debunked with documented history that the pre-tribulation rapture has been taught throughout history. This information is available to anyone willing to learn the truth.
This false claim came about because of a book written by Barbara Rossing. But, when you actually examine the statements of the girl who supposedly started the rapture teaching, you'll find that what she said actually lines up with the POST-tribulation viewpoint.
Even so, putting what I've already said aside, let's deal strictly with documented history:
In 150 AD, the Rapture idea was preached by the Shepherd of Hermas.
In 270 AD, Victorinus, the Bishop of Pettau, a Catholic leader preached it.
In 350 AD, Ephraim the Syrian
In 400 AD, Jerome in the Latin vulgate (in the Catholic Bible)
Then there were the 1,000 years of the dark ages when it wasn't taught because the times were so bleak that people had lost their hope. (Man's fault, not God's.) After that time, the teaching of the rapture began resurfacing. Again, from documented history:
In 1304 AD, Reverend Dolcino proclaimed the Pre-trib Rapture.
In 1400 AD, Bible translations in the native tongues led to a new propagation of the Pre-trib Rapture.
In 1627 AD, Joseph Mede
1627 AD Increase Mather
1687 AD, Peter Jurieu
1700 AD, John Asgill
1738 AD, Philip Doddridge
1748 AD, John Gill
1763 AD, James McKnight
1744 AD, Morgan Edwards
1792 AD, Thomas Scott
And then in 1830 AD, John Darby.
The rapture theory has been historically taught, and verified through documentation, from 150 AD onward. Before that, there's the scriptures. And it's there that each person must decide for themselves what to believe.
Again, my point is this: Don't parrot something you haven't researched yourself just because it "backs-up" what you personally think. The problem in the majority of the Christianity forum is that people aren't doing that. They're arguing opinions and feelings. But opinions and feelings aren't facts.
That's my piece.
You left Billy Joe Pete out of your traditions of men. I just listed the most commonly used version. Not that the concept is true, for it is false.
Alleged origin of the dispensational pretribulation rapture[edit]
There have been a couple of attempts to locate a "source" for Darby's concept of the rapture – the belief that a core of Christian believers who have died will be raised from the dead, and believers who are still alive and remain shall be "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess 4:17) in conjunction with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Some of these attempts imply that Darby's concepts originated from a "false" source. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles alleged that The concept was taken from one of the charismatic utterances in Edward Irving's church. Since Tregelles regarded the utterances as "pretending to be from God," his implication is that Darby's rapture is from a demonic source. Dave MacPherson built upon Tregelles's accusation, and argued[SIZE=2][5][/SIZE][SIZE=2][6][/SIZE] that the source for Darby's rapture was from an Margaret MacDonald's 1830 vision of the end times.[SIZE=2][7][/SIZE][SIZE=2][8][/SIZE]
That's me just hollering from my sofa on a snowy New England February morning.
Jesus' return to earth hasn't happened yet. It would have been in all the papers.
It would have been obvious to one and all.
Rapture fanatics continue to argue that Jesus will return two, three or even four times depending upon their particular version of the fantasy.
The Bible says He will return. That's pretty much certain. Whether He will come early to yank cowards out of unpleasant situations or not is a matter of a certain level of American foolishness.
At root of the rapture fantasy is a yellow streak a mile long. The Bible nowhere says Jesus will pull believers out of a hard situation.
"I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one."
- Jesus as quoted by John 17:15
Jesus knew what He was talking about, but as always fools tend to want things to go their way instead of listening to the Master.
The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us in troubled times (Hebrews 13:5b). Though trouble afflicts us like a tsunami God will stand with us through the storm.
We are called to good courage in the midst of tribulation so as to promote faith and trust and confidence in the mighty hand of God to deliver us through it.
The rapture is a doctrine of cowards, who argue constantly in favor of it despite there being no contextual basis for it at all. Fools they are and fools they will remain despite the hand of God being extended toward them to uphold them in the day of trouble. They deny the very benefit of God in hard times and good - always looking for an exit that never comes.
Stop calling it the New Testament church, it is unscriptural, you are only saying it to support the doctrine of men. The rock who is Jesus Christ was with Israel the church in the wilderness. You are arguing against anything that is not in with your doctrines, you just don't see it.
It's the New Testament Church. The church which is the body of Christ did not exist until the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus. And yes, it is scriptural. Oh, the words 'New Testament church' aren't found in the text, but it is the New Testament church. And you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
