Rapture?

[tflex]

Certain interpretations indicate that during the rapture, the saved will actually disappear, based on Luke 17:31-37. It depends on what your pastor/priest/minister has told you to believe, which is what denominational leaders have defined as the truth.

 

"Apostasy means giving up or renouncing of one's professed principles, or faith. This will come to pass when the religious lamb (false messiah) of Revelation 13:11 comes to pass. He will look like the Lamb of God, but his voice is of the dragon, for he is the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9). When the false christ stands in the holy place performing in the sight of Christians, the pretribulation-rapture-Christian shall think it is Christ coming to rapture them away. It is the duty of the elect to stand and witness in the synagogues, allowing the Holy Spirit to give His Message to the world through you. (Mark 13:9)." Sheperds Chapel

 

"Pre-Tribulation Rapture, the belief that the Rapture will occur prior to the Tribulation, often attribute that doctrine to a 15-year old Scottish-Irish girl named Margaret MacDonald (a follower of Edward Irving) who had a vision in 1830." wiki

 

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the coming of the apostasy first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

 

"31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." Luke 17:31-37 Also, check Matthew 24:23-31

 

When you read this, it is obvious the ones taken are the ones deceived by the false Messiah, not the ones saved. Verse 37, the translation for "body" is carcass, and for "eagles" is vultures. This figurative speech is very clear in Luke & Matthew, where the ones taken will be going. If you read all of chapter 17, it will be clear that the deceived are taken before the 7th trump, when the real Messiah arrives. The same question was asked and answered in Matthew 24:23-31, it's a good idea to read the whole chapter to get the context. It's also important to be mindful, that the coming of the real Messiah cannot happen before the 6th trump has already taken place, when the deceived will commit the unforgivable sin of accepting the fake Messiah.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, if you get your information from so-called priests, scholars, authors, and denominations you are bound to be mislead; a good "pastor/priest/minister", will always point to the scriptures to backup his words.

Edited August 13, 2006 by tflex

[Moonlapse]

Well, you can argue that with those who believe it. If you take any one believer of any denomination or no denomination, they will consider their views and interpretations to be the correct ones. Most scripture is not demonstrably cut any dried or as 'obvious' as you claim.

[Gaius Octavius]

tflex, the term 'Elect' troubles me. If this group exists, aren't those not members of it, justified in condemning God?

[tflex]

Well, you can argue that with those who believe it. If you take any one believer of any denomination or no denomination, they will consider their views and interpretations to be the correct ones. Most scripture is not demonstrably cut any dried or as 'obvious' as you claim.

 

The point of my post was to draw a line between what a person or an organization says, from what the scripture says. The pre-tribulation rapture theory is non-existant in the bible, and the Luke passage in question cannot be interpreted according to that theory, if the entire bible is read without external influences, such as denominations. It's mentioned several times in Revelation and other books, that the second coming of the real Messiah will occur during the 7th trump, only after the 6th trump has taken place. In Luke 17, it's more than obvious Jesus is talking about the 6th trump when he says "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Luke

 

Therefore, if someone interprets it any other way, it would be based on their own beliefs outside the scripture, or just ignorance of the tribulation process. I also think the scripture is more cut and dried than so-called bible scholars or ministers.

 

Gaius Octavius, I didn't understand your question exactly, if you can clarify please.

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[Gaius Octavius]

tflex:

 

In your post above, in the Sheperds Chapel quotation, the term 'elect' was used.

[Moonlapse]

Look at the context given in the verses that precede Luke 17:31-37.

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

 

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

 

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

 

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

 

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

 

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

 

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

 

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

 

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

 

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

How does this obviously refer to the sixth trump when Jesus, who refers to himself as the 'Son of man', says that this will occur when he, not the false messiah, is revealed? Wouldn't the revealing of the 'Son of man' and the comming of the kingdom of God (which is the context of these verses) be more like the seventh trump?

 

Why is it that so often, passages from several different books get taken out of context, then stitched together with some sort of rationale attached to it in order to explain something? Perhaps Jesus' words don't apply to the hallucinations of John of Patmos.

 

Regarding this:

When you read this, it is obvious the ones taken are the ones deceived by the false Messiah, not the ones saved. Verse 37, the translation for "body" is carcass, and for "eagles" is vultures.

If you study the previous verses in the original Greek (not just 37), the words used imply that one will be taken and the other sent away. It's undersood that the taken are taken by the revealed 'Son of man', who else would they be taken by? The question in verse 37 most likely refers to where the ones sent away will be sent away to. This is due to a muddling of subtle meanings (such as 'eagle' and 'body') during Greek to English translation. When the word 'left' is used in the KJV it indicates 'to remain' and is not considered the subject of the question, "Where, Lord?" This misunderstanding is consistent with the choice of translation for vulture and carcass.

 

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

 

If you've noticed, this has nothing to do with denomination and is all based on the immediately contextual scripture. I have a question. I know that you got your interpretation from someone else. Who did you get it from, and what is their affiliation?

[tflex]

Look at the context given in the verses that precede Luke 17:31-37.

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

 

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

 

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

 

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

 

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

 

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

 

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

 

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

 

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

 

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

How does this obviously refer to the sixth trump when when Jesus, who refers to himself as the 'Son of man' says that this will occur when he, not the false messiah, is revealed? Wouldn't the revealing of the 'Son of man' and the comming of the kingdom of God be the seventh trump?

 

How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion after reading Luke 17, it supports what I'm saying. First, Jesus was addressing a hostile crowd that asked him a question, then he turned to his disciples, and I think we both agree that he was talking about the second coming of the Messiah, but then he goes on to mention the negative events that are associated with that coming, and gives similar examples of Noah and Lot in the verses above. Read the entire chapter from start to finish, it's very clear if you approach it from a neutral standpoint.

 

Why is it that so often, passages from several different books get taken out of context, then stitched together with some sort of rational attached to it in order to explain something? Perhaps Jesus' words don't apply to the hallucinations of John.

 

I think you took that passage out of context, even though it stands on it's own for someone who is familiar with the bible text. I recommend that you read the entire chapter or better the entire bible, that is if you have time, or if you want to, I admit it's time consuming, but maybe you've already read the whole thing. You can't just take a few verses out of a book, and make your conclusion, especially if you're not familiar with the book, this rule applies to any book, article etc. And the other information I "stitched" together, is relevant to the discussion, certainly the tribulation cycle, since thats what we are debating. The Matthew verses that I recommended are not necessary to back Luke 17, but it's definately helpful to hear the same subject discussed from another book.

 

Gaius Octavius, elect means the chosen. It's used many times in the bible.

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[Gaius Octavius]

Frankly, I would like to know the qualifications of those who deign to interprit the Bible before I accept anything they say. I could find hundreds of interpretations for any verse, dare I say word, of the Bible within walking distance of my wigwam.

[Moonlapse]

I think you took that passage out of context, even though it stands on it's own for someone who is familiar with the bible text. I recommend that you read the entire chapter or better the entire bible, that is if you have time, or if you want to, I admit it's time consuming, but maybe you've already read the whole thing. You can't just take a few verses out of a book, and make your conclusion, especially if you're not familiar with the book, this rule applies to any book, article etc. And the other information I "stitched" together, is relevant to the discussion, certainly the tribulation cycle, since thats what we are debating. The Matthew verses that I recommended are not necessary to back Luke 17, but it's definately helpful to hear the same subject discussed from another book.

 

Context - 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

 

I was made to study the Bible from the time I could read until I left my parent's house. I've done much independent Bible study. I've debated many issues and converted a number of people to Christianity (regretfully) during missions. I'm familiar with many different interpretations of different issues in the Bible. I have no need to re-read it to understand. I'll let my previous posts speak for themselves.

[tflex]

Context - 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

 

I was made to study the Bible from the time I could read until I left my parent's house. I've done much independent Bible study. I've debated many issues and converted a number of people to Christianity during missions. I'm familiar with many different interpretations of different issues in the Bible. I have no need to re-read it to understand. I'll let my previous posts speak for themselves.

 

 

I guess I will let my previous posts speak for themselves too, I just don't see how anyone can logically interpret Luke 17 with the pre-tribulation rapture theory, based on the information I already mentioned in my previous posts, and it's all in the bible. I will let the scriptures speak for themselves, the bible and that chapter is there for all to see.

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[Moonlapse]

I guess I will let my previous posts speak for themselves too, I just don't see how anyone can logically interpret Luke 17 with the pre-tribulation rapture theory, based on the information I already mentioned in my previous posts, and it's all in the bible. I will let the scriptures speak for themselves, the bible and that chapter is there for all to see.

I agree that he is speaking about the second comming of the messiah. It is not in the context of Revelations. The stories of Lot and Noah describe some that were saved while the rest perished. What is the point of your rebuttal? When you talk of the Tribulation, you are outside of the context of Jesus' words.

[tflex]

I agree that he is speaking about the second comming of the messiah. It is not in the context of Revelations. The stories of Lot and Noah describe some the were saved while the rest perished. What is the point of your rebuttal? When you talk of the Tribulation, you are outside of the context of Jesus' words.

 

How am I out of context, when the second coming will not happen until the tribulation passes, there's a direct connection. The second coming and tribulation are discussed in many books preceding Revelation, I gave one example in Matthew. And why will the saved be wherever the body is with the eagles gathered around it.

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[Gaius Octavius]

Moonlapse:

 

I am not attempting to demean anyone - you in particular.

 

My point is basically this: Which Bible? Whose Bible? Whose interpritation?

By the time the Bible was translated into modern languages, I am sure that many errors were made. Was the nuance of the original word maintained? Does the translated word actually mean what was understood by the original word? Is the context of the verse, chapter or book properly maintained? Metaphor and the like? Will the English of today be properly understood by the readers of tomorrow?

 

Is the arguer using original documents?

 

I believe that this entire thread goes to what I have just written.

 

As an aside, I wonder if anyone could explain the 'handling of (rattle) snakes' that some hold?

Edited August 14, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Moonlapse]

Because the context is Luke 17. The chronology for the Tribulation is from Revelations, which was the writing of John of Patmos who had 'visions'. You are fitting the previous writings into that context and eliminating the more subtle meaning in order to do so. Forget the trumpets and the Beast, the context is the spoken words of Jesus according to Luke.

 

Forget the King James version and look at the orginal words of Luke with their Greek meanings. At the second comming, much like the stories of Lot and Noah, some will be taken and others sent away. This is the essence of the original Greek. The disciples ask where, Jesus says that where the carcass is the vultures gather, according to the Greek.

 

Your mind is set on Revelations which is not the word of Jesus, and you are twisting the actual words of Jesus to fit your interpretation of Revelations and the rapture.

 

Moonlapse:

 

I am not attempting to demean anyone - you in particular.

My point is basically this: Which Bible? Whose Bible? Whose interpritation?

By the time the Bible was translated into modern languages, I am sure that many errors were made. Was the nuance of the original word maintained? Does the translated word actually mean what was understood by the original word? Is the context of the verse, chapter or book properly maintained? Metaphor and the like? Will the English of today be properly understood by the readers of tomorrow?

 

I believe that this entire thread goes to what I have just written.

 

As an aside, I wonder if anyone could explain the 'handling of (rattle) snakes' that some hold?

That, sir, is what this demonstration is all about.

[Gaius Octavius]

OK. Which bible is being interpreted? Douay-Rhiems? King James? St. Joseph? Vulgate?Standard Revised? Some other? I hope all are on the same page.

Almost forgot. Which is the 'correct' version?

Edited August 14, 2006 by Gaius Octavius