Rapture?

[Rameses the Great]

Moonlapse,

 

it says in the bible, no one will know the end of the Earth not even the angels up in heaven. When John was exiled to Cyprus he saw everything in visions sent to him. So the interpretation is unclear.

 

If you want the true correct answer I can't tell you, it's with God.

 

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.

 

No disrespect by any stretch of the imagination but I don't want to hear this, 'I was a good Christian who went to church everyday.' St. Athanasius was a pagan yet he stayed true to what he believed is right. If we just heed the word of God rather than love him, we do not sincerely love him.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Moonlapse]

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?

The interpretation I'm explaining relies on the meanings of the original Greek words as they are understood today. The interpretation that the 'taken' are actually the people decieved by the false messiah described in the writings of John of Patmos who had revelations of the Apocalypse relies on the King James version for verses prior to 37 and the original Greek as they are understood today for verse 37.

 

Moonlapse,

 

it says in the bible, no one will know the end of the Earth not even the angels up in heaven. When John was exiled to Cyprus he saw everything in visions sent to him. So the interpretation is unclear.

 

If you want the true correct answer I can't tell you, it's with God.

Thats not even the point here.

 

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.

 

No disrespect by any stretch of the imagination but I don't want to hear this, 'I was a great Christian who went to church everyday.' St. Athanasius was a pagan yet he stayed true to what he believed is right. If we just heed the word of God rather than love him, we do not sincerely love him.

Of course you don't.

 

Well chaps, I'm off to sleep. Cya in the mornin'

[tflex]

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.

 

Do you consider Isiah, Job, Matthew, Mark, Acts, Thessalonians from Revelation? Why would I forget the false Messiah when he's associated with the tribulation.

 

Take chapter 17 alone, why would Jesus give the examples of Noah and Lot, if he's talking exclusively of his second coming without the preceding events that occur. Remember who Jesus was answering before turning to the disciples in Chap 17, What do you think these verses mean?

 

"20-Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21-nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

22-Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23-Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24-For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25-But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation." Luke 17

 

He's obviously talking about the fake Messiah, and he continues until the end of the Chapter.

 

I have a Greek dictionary right next to me, plus a Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary.

 

Well chaps, I'm off to sleep. Cya in the mornin'

 

Thus the lord thy god commandeth you to sleep and dream of the real Messiah, not the fake one, or ye shall be taken away to the vultures and torn into pieces, ofcourse figuratively speaking . I advise the same of Gaius Octavius, for ye is the sinful kind, and should follow Moonlapse's dream.

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[roman wargamer]

for those who believe in the concept of the end of days,

 

Replying to Rapture?

 

what is rapture???

 

rapture ( G ) raptura

 

to break, to tear out, tear apart.

(the condition of) breaking apart or bursting (out)

 

Webter's New World Dictionary

 

_____________________________________________

 

then the question what is rapture?

 

_____________________________________________

 

do it mean that when the earth was "rupture" (by a great hole) it will break apart or burst out.

 

then they should consider the science of modern geology.

 

the Pacific was known as the "ring of fire" because of many volcanoes there.

but the earth was not "rupture" even with the presence of many volcanic holes.

 

______________________________________________

 

what's more it can not even be read in the book of revelation of the Holy Sripture.

[Andrew Dalby]

Not many votes yet in this poll. Possibly the majority don't feel that any of the five options corresponds with what they think. That's how it is with me.

 

There are two big dangers close ahead. One is the escalation of war. The other is the rise in temperature to the point at which large areas of the earth become uninhabitable or unproductive. Neither of these will wipe out our species (I don't think), so no End, let alone Rapture, whatever that may be. Either alone might, and certainly both together will, disrupt and maybe destroy a large part of our civilisation.

[Gaius Octavius]

Good tflex:

 

Re 'Elect". Again, I ask, would the non- 'Elect' be justified in damning the Lord for not including them in the club? If 'predestination' is thrown into the pot, what was the point of Christ's first coming and what would the point be for a secound coming? The 'Rapture' or whatever? It has already been decided, it would seem. What's the point for forgiving sin or being re-born? As to 'predestination', what's the point of religion?

 

It is well known in the Heart of America that Gaius is First Amongst Sinners. Which particular heresy is he now to chisel on his tombstone?

 

On this thread, as best I recall, I have asked gaggles of questions, yet I say unto you, Gaius has not recieved sufficient answers!

 

Amen.

[Pantagathus]

Not many votes yet in this poll. Possibly the majority don't feel that any of the five options corresponds with what they think. That's how it is with me.

 

There are two big dangers close ahead. One is the escalation of war. The other is the rise in temperature to the point at which large areas of the earth become uninhabitable or unproductive. Neither of these will wipe out our species (I don't think), so no End, let alone Rapture, whatever that may be. Either alone might, and certainly both together will, disrupt and maybe destroy a large part of our civilisation.

 

Andrew, isn't that pretty much option #4?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

It's quite obvious that the time we live is is certainly lacking on the 'religious signs' aspect, so when the year 3000 rolls around and still nothing happens, can we finally assume all this stuff is bologna?

[Gaius Octavius]

It's quite obvious that the time we live is is certainly lacking on the 'religious signs' aspect, so when the year 3000 rolls around and still nothing happens, can we finally assume all this stuff is bologna?

 

 

3000AD? Counting! Counting!

[tflex]

Good tflex:

 

Re 'Elect". Again, I ask, would the non- 'Elect' be justified in damning the Lord for not including them in the club? If 'predestination' is thrown into the pot, what was the point of Christ's first coming and what would the point be for a secound coming? The 'Rapture' or whatever? It has already been decided, it would seem. What's the point for forgiving sin or being re-born? As to 'predestination', what's the point of religion?

 

It's very simple, the Elect are not predestined, and same goes for the non-Elect. It's mentioned in the bible that even the Kenites can convert to the Elect if they follow God's word. There is one particular example that comes to mind of a Kenite woman in Tyre, but I can't remember exactly which book it was in to quote it.

 

On this thread, as best I recall, I have asked gaggles of questions, yet I say unto you, Gaius has not recieved sufficient answers!

 

Verily Verily I say unto thee keep the questions coming, and I'll convert you Kenite, wake up dear Gaius

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex

[Favonius Cornelius]

Doesn

Edited August 14, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius

[Gaius Octavius]

tflex, O! tflex! How, in the name of twaddle, do you know my present persuasion? But have at it.

[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.

 

Do you consider Isiah, Job, Matthew, Mark, Acts, Thessalonians from Revelation? Why would I forget the false Messiah when he's associated with the tribulation.

 

Take chapter 17 alone, why would Jesus give the examples of Noah and Lot, if he's talking exclusively of his second coming without the preceding events that occur. Remember who Jesus was answering before turning to the disciples in Chap 17, What do you think these verses mean?

 

"20-Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21-nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

22-Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23-Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24-For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25-But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation." Luke 17

 

He's obviously talking about the fake Messiah, and he continues until the end of the Chapter.

 

I have a Greek dictionary right next to me, plus a Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary.

Well, I'll get to my point. I don't care one way or the other. In regards to the false messiah, what Jesus says in those verses indicates that the second comming will be like lightning in its suddenness and its basically pointless listen to those who claim that the kingdom of heaven is here, or that the messiah is here. I agree that this can imply a singular false messiah in the context of other scripture, but taken by itself it can also imply that events and mutiple people might cause someone to think that the second comming was here.

 

On to the point... 20-25 can amdittedly be interpreted as the comming of a specific false messiah when used with context from other scripture, even if it literally does not say so. This is consistent with your interpretation. Heres the thing, although the Greek interpretation actually does support your ideas, not only is the pre-tribulation rapture idea is a misinterpretation, but your original interpretation that 31-37 describes a false messiah is a misinterpretation, based on a combination of King James wording and Greek wording.

 

To put it another way - even though the Greek meaning of these verses indicates false returns of the messiah before the actual return (which is consistent with your view, and inconsistent with the pre-tribulation rapture idea), you have used the incorrect wording of the King James Bible to insist that the entire passage describes a false messiah. So next time you argue this point with someone you can point to the original Greek, instead of relying on a misinterpretation.

 

My purpose in arguing the interpretations is to show that when different versions of the Bible, different denominations, and different personal agendas are combined, the ambiguous and metaphorical scriptures can be manipulated in many different ways.

 

Anyways, I've spent far to much time debating here and not getting things done, so I'm done here.

[Gaius Octavius]

"My purpose in arguing the interpretations is to show that when different versions of the Bible, different denominations, and different personal agendas are combined, the ambiguous and metaphorical scriptures can be manipulated in many different ways."

 

Ite Missa est. Amen!

Edited August 14, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[tflex]

Doesn

Edited August 14, 2006 by tflex