Biblical question...

Enquiring Mind | 10/06/2001 | MississippiMan

[Danielle]

There is no such verse that supports a pre-trib rapture. First and foremost, I should note I'm a Christian. I've studied prophecy long enough to know that the new contemporary 'rapture dogma' about the end times is a fanciful speculation, taken as the gospel truth, because some many evangelical religious leaders believe in it.... It evolved from the teaching of the 19th century Irvingites who espoused a progressive social gospel. Darby adopted it and changed it bit, and it was popularized in the U.S. Jesus' parable of the harvest in Matthew 13 actually refutes the notion of a pre-trib rapture... Not surprisingly, there are a number of denominations from Calvinists to Catholics opposed to such a doctrine, as 'pre-trib rapture.' There are a lot of people claiming to have fully interpreted the prophecies of Revelation... The Bible warned of 'false prophets and false teachers.' Take any speculation with a grain of salt. If you don't take what I say at face value than study the scriptures. Left Behind Culturally

This was a very good essay that your link took us to, the last couple of paragraphs were kind of out of line. They basically said that people, certain people, did not save for retirement because of the impending "rapture;" but since no one knows when it will be that kind of throws the whole thing out of kilter and reasoning. I get the attitude from the essay that he thinks only fundamentalists believe in the rapture and revelations, that is not true. BTW, the "Left Behind" series is a very good work of fiction that relates well to the bible.

[maranatha]

Jesus speaks to the churches and then in Rev 4-1 John is told "I will shew thee things which must be hereafter", or after the things of the church in Rev 2-3. He then goes on to tell of the tribulation period and Christ's second coming.

Jude 14 and 1Th 3:13 tells of the coming of the Lord WITH his saints.

[maranatha]

39- "and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40- "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41- "Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left

In the verses prior to these Jesus is talking about his second coming, the Day of the Lord, and in verse 40 he says, THEN two men, etc. Therefore, he is referring to His second coming when many shall die, but not all.

[watchin]

Took me awhile, but here’s a point by point response, if you’re interested. Most of his points are intended to refute post-trib thinking, but I’m sort of mid-trib (Actually post-trib, pre-wrath). I explain more in answer #1.

Proof #1: Revelation 19:11-21 doesn't mention a resurrection.
The rapture isn't mentioned because it doesn't happen at the second coming.

I believe, along with this guy, that the rapture and actual coming of Christ to earth are two different events. I would call the rapture the second coming, but still we are in agreement as to the distinction between events. I believe the sequence is something like:

- tribulation (the seals - “war on the saints”)
– Christ returns to rapture us
– the Wrath of God (the trumpets and bowls)
– Christ's actual return to earth
– the millenial reign of Christ.

I don't claim to have it all figured out, but I do know that the pre-trib won't fit the bill.

Proof #2: Zechariah 14:1-15 doesn't mention a resurrection.

Answered in #1

Proof #3: Two different pictures are painted.

Answered in #1

Proof #4: The Known Day and the Unknown Day

Answered in #1

Proof #5: A door open in heaven (Revelation 4:1)

I personally think this a grasping at straws and a strange way to interpret scripture.

Proof #6: "Come up here." (Revelation 4:1)
This could be a prophetic reference to the rapture of the Church.

Then again, it might not be. Not much to build a doctrine on here, especially given the plain timeline type passages I’ve already cited on this thread.

The word "church" is mentioned 22 times in Rev. 1-3, but is not mentioned again until Rev. 22:17.

While the word “church” is not mentioned much in the book of Revelation, the term “saints” is used extensively to describe those who keep God’s commands, and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Tribulation saints? See post #74, point #6.

Proof #7: The 24 elders have their crowns.

This argument only holds water if you accept that the “come up here” was the rapture. As much as I’d like to avoid the tribulation, I wouldn’t place that kind of wild speculation ahead of scriptures that are more straightforward, and contradict this notion.

Proof #8 Holy ones are already with Jesus in heaven (Zech. 14:5, Rev. 19:14)
In order to come out of heaven we first have to go in, indicating a previous rapture.

Take a look at a universally accepted “rapture passage” – 1 Thes. 4:13-18. 1 Thes. 4:14 says that “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.”. The passage goes on to describe the rapture. Did he forget the "absent from the body, present with the Lord" idea? (2 Cor. 5:8) This guy needs to rely more on Scripture, and less on his logical skills (or lack thereof).

Proof #9: Kept from the hour of testing (Rev. 3:10)
Revelation 3:10 says we will be kept out of the hour of testing which will come upon the whole earth (the Tribulation). Some have wrongly believed "keep" means to keep through, or protect through the Tribulation. Suppose you approach a high voltage area with a sign that says, "Keep Out." Does that mean you can enter and be protected? No, it means you are forbidden from entering the area. But this verse also says He will keep us from the hour of testing. It is not just the testing, but the time period. If a student is excused from a test, he still may have to sit in the class while others take the test. But if he is excused from the hour of testing, he can go home. The Church will be called home before the hour of testing.

I’ve included all of his arguments here, just because they are so very lame. Let’s take a look at some authorities outside his nifty illustrations. The word is “kept”:

NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
teôreoô; from a prim. word ôçñüò teôros (a guard); to watch over, to guard:—continue (1), guard (1), guards (1), heed (2), heeds (1), held in custody (1), keep (27), keep watch over (1), keeping (1), keeping guard over (1), keeps (9), kept (12), kept in custody (3), observe (3), preserve (1), preserved (1), reserved (4), watching over (1).

Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
From ôçñüò teros (a watch; perhaps akin to G2334); to guard (from loss or injury, properly by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from G5442, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from G2892, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), that is, to note (a prophecy; figuratively to fulfil a command); by implication to detain (in custody; figuratively to maintain); by extension to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively to keep unmarried):— hold fast, keep (-er), (ob-, pre-, re) serve, watch.

So the word means precisely what he says it does not mean.

One might also note that this is the 5th letter out of 7. Why is this letter singled out, except that it fits a preconceived idea?

Proof #10: Angels don't resurrect people when they gather them for judgment.

He’s reaching again. 1 Thes. 4 speaks of an angel at the rapture, and just because we are to rise to meet Christ doesn’t mean angels cannot be involved. One might question the authors care in writing this piece when it is recognized that Mt. 24 does not speak of angels gathering anyone “for judgment”. It simply describes the gathering of the elect.

Proof #11: Both wicked and righteous both can't be taken first.
This points to two separate events, the rapture and the second coming.

Answered in #1

Proof #12: Jesus returns from the wedding.
At the rapture, Jesus is married to His bride, the Church. After the wedding, He will return to earth.

Answered in #1

Proof #13: Jesus will receive us to Himself, not us to receive Him (John 14:2-3).
If the rapture occurred at the same time as the second coming...

Answered in #1

Proof #14: The one who restrains is taken out of the way.
In 2 Thess. 2:6-7, Paul says "the one who restrains will be taken out of the way" before the Antichrist can be revealed. We believe this refers to the rapture because the Church is clearly the biggest obstacle to the Antichrist becoming a world ruler.

This argument was taken apart in post # 45

Proof #15: The separation of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)
If the rapture occurred at the second coming...

Answered in #1

Proof #16: Who will populate the Millennium?
If the rapture occurs at the second coming...

Sigh … Answered in #1

[jude24]

The only problem with your speculation about the Holy Spirit in 2 Thes. 6 is that it directly contradicts the first three verses of the same chapter.

Verses 1-3 tell us that the "coming of Christ, and our being gathered to him" will not happen until after the "man of sin is revealed". Your speculation on verse 6 results in the rapture before the man of sin is revealed. So the speculation that the "removal of the restrainer" signifies the rapture must be wrong.

Au contriare. The "second coming" is distinct from the Rapture. One is hidden, the other is not. "The day of Christ" is the 2nd coming, NOT the rapture. The "day of Christ" comes "in flaming fire taking vengence on them that know not God." (II Thess 1:8). The Rapture is a time of hope and reunion with Christ in I Thessalonians. No contradiction.

[watchin]

Look at the parallel passage in Luke:

Luke 17:34-37
³⁴I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
³⁵Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
³⁶Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
³⁷And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

When He answers our question - "where Lord?", with talk about scavengers and dead bodies, it sounds like he's talking about being "taken" through death and destruction, while we've assumed he meant rapture. Perhaps He's warning us about the conditions after the tribulation and rapture, during a time the Bible calls the "Wrath of God". Not a good place to be.

[maranatha]

And think too, Trog, if you die tomorrow you will be face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be with Him until He returns as KING OF KING and LORD OF LORDS, with his saints to bring wrath upon all those nations and people who rebelled against him. That's you and I. We are His saints and will be with him at his second coming!

[MississippiMan]

First, sincere thanks to all of you for the overwhelming response to my question. It was not meant to start a pre-trib/post-trib/no-rapture debate, but since it did I've now bookmarked this thread as a reference source to use later.

Next, let me say that I'm a born-again Christian who does believe in a Rapture and I lean toward the pre-trib argument myself. In any event, the main thing for me personally is the fact that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and when He's ready for me to join Him, I will. :)

Now the reason for the question: remember, this is a novel I'm writing. I was writing this afternoon when I got to a point where an atheist was asking some questions of a couple of pre-tribbers. This particular exchange is gonna be pretty brief and I was looking for the one verse that a pre-tribber would be most likely to start with as they explain their position. I couldn't find the verse that I had in mind and thought to myself, "I bet someone on FR knows which verse I'm thinking of!" Thus, here we are.

This information in the book will be coming from Christian characters espousing their opinions, not as authoritative commentary on the Word of God which I'm not qualified to render. Nonetheless, I do plan to be very careful about how those opinions are presented.

I just needed the one verse for this particular point in the book, but the subject will be re-visited in more detail later and you've all managed to provide me with a trove of material to consider at that point. Again, thank you!

MM

[maranatha]

You're welcome and God bless your work.

[MississippiMan]

One more thing: I meant to tell you about a GREAT Bible program that's the best I've seen. You can download a 30-day trial at this site and if you decide to keep it it's only $20ish. The one you want is the Audio Plus Bible Study. I rarely use the audio features, but this is still the top of the line package. You can download a plethora of different versions of the Bible, commentaries and study guides, etc., as plugins. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the site; it's just great software that was done as a labor of love and costs a tiny fraction of what I've seen commercial packages go for. I think you'll love it, but you're welcome to flame me if you don't. ;-)

MM

[watchin]

The "second coming" is distinct from the Rapture.

Agreed.

One is hidden, the other is not.

Sorry, that "hidden" business is the invention of man and his novels. So many Christians find it shocking, but there is really not a peep in the Bible about a hidden or invisible rapture. The only way you could support that is the "thief in the night" motif. A thorough study of that shows that the meaning is "suddeness" not "secrecy".

2 Peter 3:10
¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

It's pretty hard to make the thief in the night hidden in that passage.

Many passages are assumed to describe the invisible rapture, like the "one taken, the other left" passage. The truth is, that passage not only says nothing about secrecy or invisibility, it doesn't even refer to the rapture.

"The day of Christ" is the 2nd coming, NOT the rapture.

The passage in 2 Thes 2:1-3 is about the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our being gathered together to Him". Any other interpretation does violence to the context of the passage, rendering it meaningless.

You're suggesting something like this, "Concerning the day you get up early and open gifts around the tree, I don't want you to worry, thinking that you've missed New Year's Day. Don't let anyone deceive you, for New Years cannot come unless ..." No disrespect intended, but that's nutty.

Why would Paul begin a passage "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our being gathered together to Him" and then switch to another event in verses 2 and 3? The only reason to dodge the clear implication of the passage is discomfort with the fact that it won't fit a predetermined doctrine.

The "day of Christ" comes "in flaming fire taking vengence on them that know not God." (II Thess 1:8).

You bet it does. The Christians rise in the air (not vanish), and the unbelievers realize that their doom has come. It is a great day for believers, and the beginning of vengence - the Wrath of God - for unbelievers.

[watchin]

Interesting thoughts. Here's the NIV:

Luke 17:37
“Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
aetos; a prim. word; an eagle:—eagle (3), vultures (2).

Not much help, eh?

[RaceBannon]

OOPS!!

Got me!! What was I thinking???

That's what happens when you try to use memory instead of your Bible and Concordance!

[Licensed-To-Carry]

I appreciate your opinion for the mid-trib rapture. But its just your opinion.

None of us will know Gods timing for sure until the event happens.

I happen to belive in the Pre-trib rapture. That doesn't make me an infidel or a non-Christian.

Whether is Pre, Mid, or Post, for those of us who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior, and believe in Him as the way to Heaven, our future in eternity is secure.

Yours In Chirst

[marbren]

Have you checked out www.cjf.org yet?

[Skooz]

I believe in pan-trib, myself. It will all pan-out just fine. pre-, mid-, or post-; I'm sure God knows what He's doing. :O)