http://www.raptureready.com
Posted on 01/24/2002 12:12:38 AM PST by BurkeCalhounDabney
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:36:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I was naive then. I believed him as did thousands of folks enamored with his marvelous "ministry". Looks like he still has plenty of sheep to shear. I for one, got sheared one time too many.
EVERY major ministry KNOWS that rapture doctrine is a fund raiser and an "interest builder". Predicting the future demise of the world is more exciting than "miss cleo's" readin's, but probably not as accurate. hee hee.
And that is what all this end-time prophecy stuff is, a christianized form of soothsaying, tarot-cards and palm reading. No man KNOWS the day or the hour. At best we can know that there are seasons when the world appears to be ripe for judgment, and seasons when we are to plant, sow, and do our work.
This is the season for planting, sowing and working... not speculating about when the unknowable is going to happen.
Don't feed the bears and they will stop coming around. Funny some folks look at these end time speculators and see a "great man of God" telling the truth. Whilst I see "Miss Cleo" wearin a three-piece suit darlin', and takin' up an offerin', "ah even assept visa and masterchardge darlin'" it is laughable if it were not so pathetic.
When they stop accepting credit cards (collecting usury against a fellow believer, or familly member was illegal in biblical times) to sell their goods and stop putting little blue haired old ladies off their medication to "save just one more sould for Jesus", sell their extra three or four estate properties, and so on, maybe then they will have a little more credibility.
Do you have any ideas why Mr. LaHaye might have had to leave the three churches he was pastoring in San Diego?
Some things are better left unsaid. You support and believe who you want to, and do so at your own peril or benefit. I for one would not give the man one red cent.
Oh no, just did, on Barnes & Noble - he's a fantasy writer! My husband is a major David Eddings fan, I'm in trouble now. :)
"When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?"
The books and the movie don't affect the integrity of the Bible one iota. Nor do the interpretations one way or the other.
James 4:11
You believe what you want. I will choose to believe what I have both seen and heard. I won't send him a dime.
"Can I have your bicycle?" might be more appropriate.
And by the way, send me a check, I have souls to save. And, can I have your wallet when you are raptured? < / sarcasm >
Christian folks have been swallowing this stuff for a long time. Anything to make a buck I guess. We are after all, a capitalist culture. Who are we to question the "snake oil salesmen?"
Honestly.
In Matt 24:34, Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." A generation is not thousands of years . . . not one thousand, not two. A generation in the bible generally is 40 or 50 years. 70 AD is still within the generation to which he spoke.
Lest anyone doubt, I thank God for the faithfulness of my parents in bringing me up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord".
John wrote "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in about 68 AD, according to all but a few who want him to have written it in 95 AD. John wrote "The Apocalypse", as some want to call it because of our modern day idea of what "apocalypse" means, (while in fact it means "revelation" in the Greek) at least 2 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, contrary to what Tim LeHay says about this.
John wrote to the seven churches in Asia Minor. I believe that there is nothing written by John to them that they did not fully understand and comprehend. John did not write about black helicopters, nuclear explosions, or anything that our 20th or 21st century minds try to concoct out of it all. John, like Jesus some 30 + years before, described it as imminent.
All of what to us seem strange descriptions of things or events in John's "Revelation" are found in the Old Testament and were know to the recipients of his letter in that day. And if we read "Revelation" with out reading "Genesis" etc, we are reading in a fog.
Back to Matt 24 - as you have so aptly pointed out, being left behind is the blessing - those taken in Matt 24:40 & 41 were taken to judgement.
Also, you pointed out, that as in the days of Noah . . . Noah and those with him in the ark were taken through the flood, implying that those to whom the book of Revelation applies prophetically, will be taken through, not out.
The Pre-TRib Rapture ("Rapture" is not a word to be found in the Bible) belief that is dominant in many fundamental/evangelical circles, dates to about 1825. A young woman in Scotland, a follower of Edward Irving, reportedly had a vision that suggested this concept. A man in England, John Nelson Darby, a former priest in the Church of Ireland, and one of the men who were responsible for the beginings of the Plymouth Brethren movement, learned of this and went to Scotland to interview the young woman. Darby popularized this belief, and Scofield, who admired Darby and his writings (but was not associated directly), promoted this belief in his notes in the "Scofield Reference Bible".
My great grandfather in England was contemporary with Darby and was associated with him. For may years I was taught and believed "Pre-Trib". We are told that the Bereans searched the scriptures to show that these things (what they were being taught) were so. God grant us all the wisdom to search the scriptures and rely on the understanding given to us by the Holy Spirit as we search.
http://www.raptureready.com
rotting carcasses and burning fires don't sound like my idea of a rapturous event that I want to attend.
How dare you question the writings of the lahayes and lindsays of the "any minute now" crowd of chicken littles?
May I add it might be wise to keep your wallet in your trousers and don't send the manic glory hallers any money unless you are dead sure you want to flush your hard earned cash down the proverbial toilet?
But hey, maybe its just me.
I read it and found it to be more about politics than anything else. Rather left-wing, blame America politics at that.
Good question. I include verse 3, since it also mentions 1000 years (millenia in Greek).
He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
It never occurred to me that the 3 mentions of 1000 years are not the same period of time. That seems the most natural way to read this. How can you read it to be different periods of time?
FS, I will show my point, but first, I must make a few assumptions clear.
The Pre-Trib position makes clear that their belief in the "literal hermeneutic" is to be preferred to any other hermeneutic. A simple definition I have seen is that the first rule of a biblical text is it be read in the most literal way possible. That is the working definition I use for the "literal hermeneutic". If that is in error, please correct me.
According to Charles C. Rye in his Dispensationalism Today" he defines the "literal hermenteutic" as "...interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking." (emphasis mine)
I will use this understanding to demonstrate that the pre-tribs do not even follow their own hermeneutic. Without using this hermeneutic myself, I do believe that there are two millenia mentioned in 4-6. It is the plain reading of this text. No torture or parsing needed. It is also consistent with other parallel verses in Scripture.
Go back to your citation:
Notice verse 4 states "They ...reigned with Christ a thousand years."
This is a past/present reference. The word "reigned" is in past tense. This phrasing could either be past or present. If we knew each other and you told me you never lived in Chicago, and I thought you grew up there, but moved to Michigan, I might say, "I thought you lived in Chicago" In this context lived is past tense. However, the phrase "I thought you lived in Chicago" could also be refering to a present condition if the context was such that I ran into you in a local supermarket with a large shopping cart full of groceries and I was wondering what you "were" doing with groceries if you "lived" in Chicago. I think you get my drift. Either way, "reigned" cannot refer to a future event -even from John's perspective.
Now, in verse 6 we read: "...but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."
In this instance, "will be priests" and "will reign" is a future event and cannot be considered past in any context.
According to Charles Rye's definition, these must be considered in their normal language use, and must be referring to two distinct events, one past/present and one future.
I suggest it had never occurred to you because you have been told what this passage is saying and have failed to let the passage speak for itself. (I'm not intending a slam here, I am certain this is the case with myself in other passages as well!)
Regards,
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.