|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 18, 2009 7:27:32 GMT -5
Wow..lol..ok...you believe it was a "literal rapture" Yes! The direction of "caught up" is specified, as UP, not north, south, east, or west. You don't know everything that the Lord taught, only the things that's written. Paul said the words that he spoke (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) were BY the Lord, and I believe it. As previously stated I got it from 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, where apostle Paul, said that he got it BY the word of the Lord. Notice... John 17:18 But as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. They were given the great commission, after which they would be received to heaven... Matthew 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will COME again, and receive you unto MYSELF; that where I am, there ye may be. Jesus promised his disciples that He would "personally" COME for them before they went through all the cities of Israel (Matthew 10:23), before they all died (Matthew 16:27,28). I believe he kept his word! Thanks, the feeling is mutual!  Lady Sower~ The way I understand the word "harpazo" and when it is used by itself in the greek it means to be seized,grasped etc but the word by itself without adding any thing to it like the translators did [they added the word UP]to it to satisfy their bias belief [so i believe] cannot be used to prove a transportation of one place to another in any direction which btw [north,south,east ,west]can be directional indicators [up,down,left,right].I would like to encourage you to look up all 13 places where this word [harpazo]is used and see if the word can still be to indicate a "lifting off the ground"in 1 Thess 4. This is true Biblical hermeneutics by allowing scripture to explain scripture . Jesus prayed that his disciples would not be removed in John 17.Why would He pray for them to not be removed and later on remove them? that does not make sense. John 14:3-And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will COME again, and receive you unto MYSELF; that where I am, there ye may be. This alone here can lead to another topic which I will try not to get into now.. but I do not see this scripture as a rapture text but rather Jesus telling them exactly where He would be after His parousia..and that is..upon this earth now in the Spirit world where He currently reigns as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.. I see your point but I do not find enough evidence in scripture to prove a literal rapture occurred.I do not believe scripture teaches that but I would like to see more.It is easy to say "well the Lord said it,I believe it and that settles it"and that is one reason I believe we have the mass confusion over the endtimes today..we do not look how other scripture explains things as well. Be blessed |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 18, 2009 9:29:22 GMT -5
In researching it, it looks to me that the "up" in "caught up" as the translation of harpazo is not inherent in harpazo itself, but implied by the additional information in the sentence, namely "clouds," therefore the translators inserted/assumed "up" was the direction.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 18, 2009 11:10:21 GMT -5
Again, IF those witnesses to the prophecy, who were CLEARLY expecting the Lord to APPEAR again within their lifetime, did not SEE Him APPEAR, then Jesus and Paul both failed the scriptural test of a prophet, folks.
I believe that we can overspiritualize an event to the point where we actually make the Lord into a false prophet.
Jesus said they would SEE Jerusalem destroyed. In the same exact passage, He said they would SEE Him returning in the clouds. Apparently, at least according to some of the reasoning I see here, they really SAW Jerusalem destroyed but they did not really SEE Jesus return in the clouds. Hello?
WHY did an orthodox Jewish historian named Josephus record EYEWITNESS accounts of miraculous things happening if those people did not SEE them, folks?
FULLpreteristmouse
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 18, 2009 13:30:37 GMT -5
In researching it, it looks to me that the "up" in "caught up" as the translation of harpazo is not inherent in harpazo itself, but implied by the additional information in the sentence, namely "clouds," therefore the translators inserted/assumed "up" was the direction. Bev Excellent point! ;D Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 18, 2009 14:08:49 GMT -5
I think that those alive at the coming of Christ on clouds (70AD), continued to live on earth. Paul wrote that the dead were to be raised immortal then those who were still alive. I dont think Paul meant immediately after, but just after. Hi Adhitthana, I don't see how...We which are ALIVE and remain shall be "caught up" TOGETHER, with them in the clouds "to meet" the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:17), could be true. If those alive would die later, how could they meet together in the clouds with those resurrected at the last trump? That's contradicts the scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; WE shall not "all" sleep [die], but WE shall "all" be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, AT the last trump; for the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE shall be changed. (If that happened at the last trump as Paul said, and the living saints were left on the earth, this was their state)... 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. My question is, how does living saints upon the earth that were "changed" [i.e. no longer mortal or corruptible], then die later on?  Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 7:11:37 GMT -5
In researching it, it looks to me that the "up" in "caught up" as the translation of harpazo is not inherent in harpazo itself, but implied by the additional information in the sentence, namely "clouds," therefore the translators inserted/assumed "up" was the direction. Bev That is exactly my point!..To many times [at least for me]I simply picked up the Bible and read it word for word and expected and believed "word for word" only to find out there truly was a different meaning to what was said.. this is how I came to "preterism" 1 Thess 4 if we read it for what it says just as it is..Yes it seems to teach a "lifting off the ground" and flying through the air afterall is this not what we have all been taught most of our life?..sure it is..and it is this scenario our mind wants to keep going back to and insist this is what Paul was teaching. I have mentioned a passage out of John 17 in the prayer of Jesus..He prayed for his disciples to not be removed..and if we are to take the rest of Jesus words then why not here also?..the word Harpazo has a meaning of being grasped but the word if used by itself does not support a direction of any kind..if I find time I will post the 13 other places the same word is used and let you see if it means what we think is does.. |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 7:18:48 GMT -5
I think that those alive at the coming of Christ on clouds (70AD), continued to live on earth. Paul wrote that the dead were to be raised immortal then those who were still alive. I dont think Paul meant immediately after, but just after. Hi Adhitthana, I don't see how...We which are ALIVE and remain shall be "caught up" TOGETHER, with them in the clouds "to meet" the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:17), could be true. If those alive would die later, how could they meet together in the clouds with those resurrected at the last trump? That's contradicts the scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; WE shall not "all" sleep [die], but WE shall "all" be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, AT the last trump; for the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE shall be changed. (If that happened at the last trump as Paul said, and the living saints were left on the earth, this was their state)... 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. My question is, how does living saints upon the earth that were "changed" [i.e. no longer mortal or corruptible], then die later on? Lady Sower~ Physical death is a promise to every human being alive,Christian or sinner..no way around it.Adam was created to die..for out dust He was created and to dust He will return..God gave him a limited warranty..John 3:16 is real interesting and we all know it..but we do not really look at it...let me point out something about it.. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole idea behind salvation is the redemption of the soul amen?..A believer will never die [soul]but live forever..BUT..the flesh will die.. When Adam ate of the fruit..God said..in THAT DAY you will die!..yet Adam lived 930 yrs..was it a physical or spiritual death?..I say it was physical..and truly this is what the "change"was that Paul preached about...we shall be CHANGED..what was the change?..it was the promise of everlasting life that was to come after 70 ad and the law being fulfilled..overcoming what kept a soul bound..the law..I have ran out of time to really explain it further.. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 19, 2009 7:35:21 GMT -5
..the word Harpazo has a meaning of being grasped but the word if used by itself does not support a direction of any kind.. True, indeed, about it not supporting a direction. However, it does not mean "grasped" in the sense of "hold onto" (as is misunderstood of its variant form harpagmos is Philippians 2:6). The only "grasping" is done by the person or thing TAKING AWAY whatever is in view. The "taking" is by force, thus the translations indicating seizing or robbery. Taking something that one did not previously possess. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 19, 2009 11:57:25 GMT -5
I think that those alive at the coming of Christ on clouds (70AD), continued to live on earth. Paul wrote that the dead were to be raised immortal then those who were still alive. I dont think Paul meant immediately after, but just after. Hi Adhitthana, I don't see how...We which are ALIVE and remain shall be "caught up" TOGETHER, with them in the clouds "to meet" the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:17), could be true. If those alive would die later, how could they meet together in the clouds with those resurrected at the last trump? That's contradicts the scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; WE shall not "all" sleep [die], but WE shall "all" be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, AT the last trump; for the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE shall be changed. (If that happened at the last trump as Paul said, and the living saints were left on the earth, this was their state)... 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. My question is, how does living saints upon the earth that were "changed" [i.e. no longer mortal or corruptible], then die later on? Lady Sower~ Amen! And another overwhelming evidence that the true believers were no longer on this earth after 70 AD is the deafening SILENCE! All these prolific writings for decades prior and absolutely NOTHING after. Why? Because the writers were not on the earth anymore, that's why, folks. If those witnesses did not SEE what Jesus and Paul said they would SEE, then we are all living in vain hope following false prophets. preteristmouse |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 19, 2009 12:28:11 GMT -5
Not so, some first century christians were changed... We shall 'not' ALL sleep [die], but we shall ALL be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMP (1 Corinthians 15:51,52. Paul said those ALIVE at the "last trump" would be CHANGED, to meet the dead in the clouds. That's contrary to God's command to Adam... Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. I believe if Adam had obeyed God, he would be alive today. Amen! Spiritual! I disagree! ..."Corruptible must 'put on' incorruption, and mortality must 'put on' immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53,54). Everlasting life, came before AD70. You've probably heard Noble talk about Martha (John 11:25,26). Besides, post AD70 chrisitians today are still 'corruptible and mortal' beings. That's Covenantal. The first century christians were looking for glorification at the last trump. Glorification is the exact same thing futurist today look for at the last trump, but their timing is off by 2000 years. See you later, have a nice day! Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Feb 19, 2009 14:44:20 GMT -5
Amen! And another overwhelming evidence that the true believers were no longer on this earth after 70 AD is the deafening SILENCE! All these prolific writings for decades prior and absolutely NOTHING after. Why? Because the writers were not on the earth anymore, that's why, folks. If those witnesses did not SEE what Jesus and Paul said they would SEE, then we are all living in vain hope following false prophets. preteristmouse There is a small problem with that however - like how could we be considered true believers if no one was able to believe on those words of the apostles - the eyewitnesses, none of whom were raptured alive - not even John? Scripture says that by scattering the true believers thru persecution, they were the ones who spread the gospel of the glory of Christ into the earth. So if they were caught up, then that catching up must have been spiritual - the joining of the living souls to the Bridegroom. There is no other way to believe on the apostles words who are now dead except thru those who heard them. That would have left us with only the witness of those who came up with the creeds - the ones who DIDN'T believe. So even though they were the ones who became established, it is still possible to hear those words of the apostles and their testimony and believe - even though the ones speaking those words don't themselves believe it! "Alive and remain" is repeated which is no doubt for emphasis, so that we might understand that their catching up to the Lord was NOT their removal from the earth. No living beings were to be taken out of the world according to Jesus' prayer in John 17. Else there would be no testimony in the earth for future generations. I doubt that we would even believe that Christ had been raised if those 500 who witnessed it had not remained alive to tell about it. Just as in the Exodus the fathers were able to pass the miracles they saw in Egypt on to the next generation before they all died. If every true witness had been removed - who would believe any of it today? Whereas they kept their faithful witness right up until death, is what scripture tells us. Which I have probably not explained very clearly as I read this over, hopefully it makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 19, 2009 15:59:07 GMT -5
Amen! And another overwhelming evidence that the true believers were no longer on this earth after 70 AD is the deafening SILENCE! All these prolific writings for decades prior and absolutely NOTHING after. Why? Because the writers were not on the earth anymore, that's why, folks. If those witnesses did not SEE what Jesus and Paul said they would SEE, then we are all living in vain hope following false prophets. preteristmouse There is a small problem with that however - like how could we be considered true believers if no one was able to believe on those words of the apostles - the eyewitnesses, none of whom were raptured alive - not even John? Scripture says that by scattering the true believers thru persecution, they were the ones who spread the gospel of the glory of Christ into the earth. So if they were caught up, then that catching up must have been spiritual - the joining of the living souls to the Bridegroom. There is no other way to believe on the apostles words who are now dead except thru those who heard them. That would have left us with only the witness of those who came up with the creeds - the ones who DIDN'T believe. So even though they were the ones who became established, it is still possible to hear those words of the apostles and their testimony and believe - even though the ones speaking those words don't themselves believe it! "Alive and remain" is repeated which is no doubt for emphasis, so that we might understand that their catching up to the Lord was NOT their removal from the earth. No living beings were to be taken out of the world according to Jesus' prayer in John 17. Else there would be no testimony in the earth for future generations. I doubt that we would even believe that Christ had been raised if those 500 who witnessed it had not remained alive to tell about it. Just as in the Exodus the fathers were able to pass the miracles they saw in Egypt on to the next generation before they all died. If every true witness had been removed - who would believe any of it today? Whereas they kept their faithful witness right up until death, is what scripture tells us. Which I have probably not explained very clearly as I read this over, hopefully it makes sense. Why did you remove the phrases "alive and remain" out of their direct context with the return of Christ and try to make it apparently refer to some being "alive and remaining" afterwards? Paul was very clearly referring to those who would still be "alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord". He very clearly says that "THEN those who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them" to "meet the Lord in the air". WHO is the "THEM" that they would be caught up "TOGETHER" with if this event did not really occur? In your particular view, are you saying "them" did not have anything to do with those who were already physically dead? And if you do believe that "them" is referring to those who were already physically dead, do you believe that they were "caught up" to meet the Lord or not? If so then WHY did Paul use the word "TOGETHER" when talking about those who would be alive and remain until the Lord returned? Why did God even bother writing down His word if man still needed some "testimony in the earth for future generations." after 70 AD to be saved? Peter put it this way, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." There is a reason that scripture repeatedly refers to men being "blind", "having eyes that do not see", "ears that do not hear", etc. The minute before you heard or read the truth from the word of God and the Spirit convicted your heart, you were spiritually "asleep" even though your physical eyes were wide open. The next minute you were AWAKE. Men were spiritually asleep on the day that the Lord returned in 70 AD and took the AWAKE believers with Him just like He and Paul SAID would happen. Just like you and I today, those men then read His word the very next day, the next month, the next year and were "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever". You see, God left man His word for a REASON. I simply cannot agree with the claim that those witnesses to the prophecy did not SEE exactly what Jesus and Paul said that they would SEE. I firmly believe that Josephus recorded EYEWITNESS accounts of what happened. FULLpreteristmouse |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 19, 2009 17:28:32 GMT -5
Amen!
When the rich man wanted Abraham to Lazarus to talk to his brothers...
Abraham saith unto him [the rich man], They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them (Luke 16:29).
That was the OT, writings (Moses and the prophets were dead).
After AD70, they had the NT. writings (Jesus and the church had gone).
Lady Sower~
|
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 22:23:17 GMT -5
Not so, some first century christians were changed... We shall 'not' ALL sleep [die], but we shall ALL be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMP (1 Corinthians 15:51,52. Paul said those ALIVE at the "last trump" would be CHANGED, to meet the dead in the clouds. That's contrary to God's command to Adam... Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. I believe if Adam had obeyed God, he would be alive today. Amen! Spiritual! I disagree! ..."Corruptible must 'put on' incorruption, and mortality must 'put on' immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53,54). Everlasting life, came before AD70. You've probably heard Noble talk about Martha (John 11:25,26). Besides, post AD70 chrisitians today are still 'corruptible and mortal' beings. That's Covenantal. The first century christians were looking for glorification at the last trump. Glorification is the exact same thing futurist today look for at the last trump, but their timing is off by 2000 years. See you later, have a nice day! Lady Sower~ Adam was created OUTSIDE of the Garden..and when He received the breath of life was after He was placed inside..from dust thou were taken and from dust thou shall return..God never promised Adam eternal life!..least I do not see scripture that proves that..but if that is what you believe..ok There is no reason for this flesh to be glorified..it is not the flesh that lives on..but the soul..The believer is promised eternal life..not the sinner.. I believe we do not fully understand the nature of the resurrection but I honestly do not believe it was about "casket resurrections" If flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom there is no need for a flesh body physical OR spiritual body period why?because..2 cor 5:1-2 says For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: Where is it from?..heaven...says nothing about a body in the ground being glorified.. As mentioned our body will come from?.. Heaven..nothing about the grave..I believe the change was somewhere along these lines and nothing to do with the physical body they had..They were waiting to be CLOTHED..puttin on the image of Christ..the new nature..those of that 1st century were in a transactional period awaiting the veil to be removed.. Heb 9:28- so Christ, after being once sacrificed to bear the sins of many, will appear again, not to deal with sin but for the saving of those who look out for him. If they already had salvation before Ad 70..no need to wait for it! 2 cor 3:18-But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord Notice..ARE being changed..they were in the process of coming more like Christ..they awaited this change..that was coming at the end of the age..the doing away with the sting of death...the Law!..Christ came to fulfill the law and bring salvation,deliverance to those who waited for him..just as the High priest entered the Temple to present the offering they also had to await His return out of the Temple..they just could not do a drop off my pigeon,bull,goat with a note tied to it..no..they had to wait for the High Priest to come back to complete..hmmm..this is where I am at in my thinking,I am not saying I have the answer but I staying open..lol..I definitely do not think those 1st century saints received glorified flesh bodies and were beamed up to Heaven to a 5'6 physical Jesus standing in the clouds..it does sound good but I am just shaking my head at that thought.. |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 22:31:09 GMT -5
There is a small problem with that however - like how could we be considered true believers if no one was able to believe on those words of the apostles - the eyewitnesses, none of whom were raptured alive - not even John? Scripture says that by scattering the true believers thru persecution, they were the ones who spread the gospel of the glory of Christ into the earth. So if they were caught up, then that catching up must have been spiritual - the joining of the living souls to the Bridegroom. There is no other way to believe on the apostles words who are now dead except thru those who heard them. That would have left us with only the witness of those who came up with the creeds - the ones who DIDN'T believe. So even though they were the ones who became established, it is still possible to hear those words of the apostles and their testimony and believe - even though the ones speaking those words don't themselves believe it! "Alive and remain" is repeated which is no doubt for emphasis, so that we might understand that their catching up to the Lord was NOT their removal from the earth. No living beings were to be taken out of the world according to Jesus' prayer in John 17. Else there would be no testimony in the earth for future generations. I doubt that we would even believe that Christ had been raised if those 500 who witnessed it had not remained alive to tell about it. Just as in the Exodus the fathers were able to pass the miracles they saw in Egypt on to the next generation before they all died. If every true witness had been removed - who would believe any of it today? Whereas they kept their faithful witness right up until death, is what scripture tells us. Which I have probably not explained very clearly as I read this over, hopefully it makes sense. Why did you remove the phrases "alive and remain" out of their direct context with the return of Christ and try to make it apparently refer to some being "alive and remaining" afterwards? Paul was very clearly referring to those who would still be "alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord". He very clearly says that "THEN those who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them" to "meet the Lord in the air". WHO is the "THEM" that they would be caught up "TOGETHER" with if this event did not really occur? In your particular view, are you saying "them" did not have anything to do with those who were already physically dead? And if you do believe that "them" is referring to those who were already physically dead, do you believe that they were "caught up" to meet the Lord or not? If so then WHY did Paul use the word "TOGETHER" when talking about those who would be alive and remain until the Lord returned? Why did God even bother writing down His word if man still needed some "testimony in the earth for future generations." after 70 AD to be saved? Peter put it this way, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." There is a reason that scripture repeatedly refers to men being "blind", "having eyes that do not see", "ears that do not hear", etc. The minute before you heard or read the truth from the word of God and the Spirit convicted your heart, you were spiritually "asleep" even though your physical eyes were wide open. The next minute you were AWAKE. Men were spiritually asleep on the day that the Lord returned in 70 AD and took the AWAKE believers with Him just like He and Paul SAID would happen. Just like you and I today, those men then read His word the very next day, the next month, the next year and were "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever". You see, God left man His word for a REASON. I simply cannot agree with the claim that those witnesses to the prophecy did not SEE exactly what Jesus and Paul said that they would SEE. I firmly believe that Josephus recorded EYEWITNESS accounts of what happened. FULLpreteristmouse It is interesting that those disciples of Acts 1:9-11 were the last to see a physical gloried body that Jesus had.Do you suppose He went back up to Heaven and swapped and came back in the body He left with?..not trying to be smart elleck..just trying to reason here..After Jesus went to Heaven,his next appearance in scripture was to Paul and if Paul was asked to describe what He saw..His description would not fit that of those in Acts 1:11 saw...Jesus made a few more appearances and it was not in that body that left the earth..just my thought here  |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 22:58:46 GMT -5
Again, IF those witnesses to the prophecy, who were CLEARLY expecting the Lord to APPEAR again within their lifetime, did not SEE Him APPEAR, then Jesus and Paul both failed the scriptural test of a prophet, folks. I believe that we can overspiritualize an event to the point where we actually make the Lord into a false prophet. Jesus said they would SEE Jerusalem destroyed. In the same exact passage, He said they would SEE Him returning in the clouds. Apparently, at least according to some of the reasoning I see here, they really SAW Jerusalem destroyed but they did not really SEE Jesus return in the clouds. Hello? WHY did an orthodox Jewish historian named Josephus record EYEWITNESS accounts of miraculous things happening if those people did not SEE them, folks? FULLpreteristmouse Just a simple question..if those 1st century disciples only had the OT as their bible and they read and understood the things that were written INCLUDING the scriptures that mention "God came down" etc..and they understood they were never a physical literal coming of God..then Why would they expect a literal physical appearance of Jesus?..The OT mentions the Sun,moon,stars falling and we understand that..but for some reason just as the futurist do..people expect literal for the 2nd coming.. I believe Joesephus did see some things..but He did not see God in a cloud..coming in the clouds was a Hebraic phrase they understood..it was always a reference to judgment..I believe matthew 24,,1 Thess 4...Rev 1:7 and so on are all linked to the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the OT system..the usher in the NT and bring about the change those of that 1st century were promised..Paul said in Acts 26:22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come-- Where did Moses or the prophets say..a "rapture" would take place?..I do not think it can be proven from their writings but I will be the first to admit..I would love to see it..  |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Feb 19, 2009 23:06:36 GMT -5
Besides..John 17:15 {NLT} just does not go away-I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. I realize this may be a thorny scripture for some..but if these disciples were somehow "taken out" this would go against the prayer of Jesus.. Pro 10:30[asv]-The righteous shall never be removed; But the wicked shall not dwell in the land. In the flood..who was the ones who were taken? the wicked or the righteous?.. Parable of the tares..who was taken first?..it was the wicked Just some more thought |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 19, 2009 23:20:09 GMT -5
Adam was created OUTSIDE of the Garden..and when He received the breath of life was after He was placed inside..from dust thou were taken and from dust thou shall return..God never promised Adam eternal life!..least I do not see scripture that proves that Genesis 2:17 prove that God promised Adam he would die if he ate from the tree of knowledge. That implies (at least to me), Adam would live as long as he did not eat of it. True! Why not? True! I believe the physical body was changed to an immortal, incorruptible, spiritual body that remains in heaven. Upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life (2 Corinthians 5:4). That mean immortality! They received that, when they received Christ, otherwise they (2 Corinthians 5:17). They waited for the day of redemption... Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were SEALED with the holy Spirit of promise. 14 Which is the earnest of our 'inheritance,' UNTIL the redemption of the purchased posession, unto the praise of his glory. 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are SEALED unto 'the day of redemption.' Jesus told them when they see those things (Luke 21:5-26), 'begin' to happen look up for their redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28). The redemption they looked for occurred, AD70. I don't believe they were beamed to heaven in glorified flesh bodies either. I believe they were 'caught up' to heaven, as Paul said (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) with, immortal, incorruptible, spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Feb 20, 2009 0:11:18 GMT -5
I am amazed at the different viewpoints on this question from us who call ourselves preterist (as I am as well).
To quote a scripture and say "thats what I believe. period." is I'm sorry to say a little childish. Of course you believe it, as well as everyone else who posts here. The question is how you understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by adhitthana on Feb 20, 2009 7:58:37 GMT -5
Hi Adhitthana, I don't see how...We which are ALIVE and remain shall be "caught up" TOGETHER, with them in the clouds "to meet" the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:17), could be true. It could possibly be true because those who were alive remained. There are often a few ways to read any verse such as this IMHO. I can see a couple of possibilities at least. It may even require going back to the original version (which I believe was in Aramaic, and survives in the pes h i t ta) But even if we look back to the original (whether greek or Aramaic) how can we even be sure we understand every idiom? If those alive would die later, how could they meet together in the clouds with those resurrected at the last trump? IOW does TOGETHER mean "at the same time" or "in the same way". I think either is possible (assuming the literalness of our english translation even do justice). When I look at this verse in the light of everything else written, I think that Paul was just assuring them that they too would share in the resurrection, although maybe not at precisely the same time. If not, then Paul appears to me, to be introducing a strange new idea (that of a rapture) that makes no appearance elsewhere. Well one problem I see here is that the word DIE has been introduced, when it is not in the text. I dont think "sleep" means die here, but rather to sleep IMHO meant to wait in sheol/abrahams bosom. Well, in the light of the rest of the NT I personally am not convinced that Paul intended to say that living belivers were to be changed at the same time. As he writes in the very same chapter, "a seed must die". Hmm..I tend, following Augustines view, to slightly disagree with that reading of Genesis. I think , that Genesis reads, that Adam was made with the possibility of death, but not needing to die, or necessarily going to. Possibly, but possibly it may be better stated in other ways. Seems ok. As Shimei lived on when Solomon made the same promise. IMHO Adam came under the "sentence of death" That is how Genesis reads to me to. Adam began to die physically on that day. It is almost identical to the Hebrew words between Solomon and Shimei. Yes , you may be right. I am open to this idea, but have not yet seen it put forth in a way which convinced me...yet. But that is just me Always a pleasure chatting with you. |
|
|
|
Post by adhitthana on Feb 20, 2009 8:02:04 GMT -5
Adam was created OUTSIDE of the Garden..and when He received the breath of life was after He was placed inside..from dust thou were taken and from dust thou shall return..God never promised Adam eternal life!..least I do not see scripture that proves that Genesis 2:17 prove that God promised Adam he would die if he ate from the tree of knowledge. That implies (at least to me), Adam would live as long as he did not eat of it. This is what Augustine saw too. In Latin he wrote, "non imposse mori sed posse no mori", meaning, it was not impossible for him to die but it was possible for him not to die. This is in contrast to immortality, when one cannot die. |
|
|
|
Post by adhitthana on Feb 20, 2009 8:12:15 GMT -5
Again, IF those witnesses to the prophecy, who were CLEARLY expecting the Lord to APPEAR again within their lifetime, did not SEE Him APPEAR, then Jesus and Paul both failed the scriptural test of a prophet, folks. I believe that we can overspiritualize an event to the point where we actually make the Lord into a false prophet. Maybe, but I think there is a fairly good case to see things another way. www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_apocalypticlanguage.html#subhead1 |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 20, 2009 10:43:55 GMT -5
The second appearing was compared to two different judgments in the Jews history - the flood and Sodom & Gomorra.
Each time the wicked were taken in judgment there were absolutely no stragglers in the distance which had barely (by the skin of their teeth) made it through. Judgment was complete. No one was delivered (saved) once judgment began. The dispensationalists don't like that.
After judgment, and in both instances, the ones delivered (saved) REMAINED on the land! Lot was taken outside of the urban areas and protected from judgment. Noah and his family resided inside a protected ark. Yet both groups would continue to live on the Earth! And so it was in 70 AD, or else the comparison has a few errors and I don't like the consequences of that line of thinking. This is why Jesus told the Christians to flee Judea when they saw the abomination of desolation...
Concerning John 17:15, where everyone uses this passage as showing that it is not a whisking away of the saints from the planet Earth, I believe this passage can not be used as a proof text for such. The "world" mentioned in this verse is NOT speaking about our planet! In fact, nowhere in the entire New Testament is "kosmos" to be interpreted as planet Earth. This is futurism's greatest error.
The "world" (orderly arrangement) is that of Judaism and old covenant ceremony. This is the world that the saints should be protected from. This is the "world" that many saints did return to. The constant warnings to the believers to not go back into the Law is numerous. However, because of persecution, there were many who did.
The glorified body??? = Christ's body = the body of Christ = the church = those in the new covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:6-11 - Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Can you see how the two covenants are being compared with each other? The first covenant was glorious, but the second was more glorious. The change that everyone is looking for is found in the next verse:
2 Corinthians 3:18 - But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
This is the rapture and is perfectly consistent with the Old Testament that Paul preached.
|
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Feb 20, 2009 10:49:25 GMT -5
Thanks Mellontes, Adhitthana, and John14and9 !!!
You guys provide excellent responses that are very thought provoking and complete. Please keep up the good work. Be sure there are many that benefit from your posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 20, 2009 11:22:25 GMT -5
Again, IF those witnesses to the prophecy, who were CLEARLY expecting the Lord to APPEAR again within their lifetime, did not SEE Him APPEAR, then Jesus and Paul both failed the scriptural test of a prophet, folks. I believe that we can overspiritualize an event to the point where we actually make the Lord into a false prophet. Maybe, but I think there is a fairly good case to see things another way. www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_apocalypticlanguage.html#subhead1I think a lot of times we try to spiritualize His return to try to convince futurists who insist that there is no evidence that He returned. I am not near as eloquent and able to put words together like most of you folks and, apparently, when I do try to explain why I believe as I do at least one of you thinks I am "childish". However, I am compelled to give it my best shot because I believe that there is a fundamental difference between full preterism and partial/idealist preterism. Consider: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be THE SIGN of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt.24:1-3) Jesus was asked about SIGNS. Let me repeat that for emphasis: Jesus was asked about SIGNS. Ok, ok, ok, ... please bear with me one more time: Jesus was asked about SIGNS!!! Then Jesus begins to ANSWER the QUESTION. Matthew records some of His answer but I personally get much more from Luke's record in Luke 21. "20: And WHEN ye shall SEE Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." Did they or did they not SEE Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman army? Josephus records EYEWITNESS accounts of chariots in the clouds! "27: And THEN shall they SEE the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28: And WHEN these things begin to come to pass, THEN LOOK UP, AND LIFT UP YOUR HEADS, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." Look at how Matthew words it: "30: And THEN shall appear the SIGN of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall SEE the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Josephus records that a star or comet in the shape of a sword hung over the city for a whole YEAR. If those who try to spiritualize Jesus' prophecy think that star has no signficance, please consider ANOTHER star that also heralded His arrival some 70 years earlier: Matt.2:"1: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2: Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." "7: Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently WHAT TIME the star appeared." "16: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, FROM TWO YEARS OLD and under, ACCORDING TO THE TIME which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." Those wise men from the east did NOT hop on a jet plane or into a Corvette when they first saw that star, folks. According to scripture it was upwards of TWO YEARS before they finally got to their destination. Now I realize the futurists love to mock Josephus, but surely we preterists can at least agree that he wrote down what he and others SAW! The point is this: How can we HONESTLY say that those witnesses literally SAW Jerusalem being destroyed exactly like Jesus said they would SEE and then turn right around and claim that they did NOT SEE Jesus returning exactly like He said they would SEE? What possible hermeneutic gives us the right to completely DISSECT His prophecy in such a manner? Do we or do we not believe that Paul SAW Jesus on the road to Damascus just because his companions did not see Him? Are we so interested in convincing futurists that we must EXPLAIN AWAY/SPIRITUALIZE the prophecy because the unbelievers did not see Him in 70 AD? I, for one, do NOT believe that it is mere coincidence that EYEWITNESS records were preserved down through the centuries PROVING that Jesus was a true Prophet of God, folks. FULLpreteristmouse |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Feb 20, 2009 11:26:36 GMT -5
The Orthodox seem to have everything wrapped up nicely by sticking to a literal physical view of these spiritual things. Which is why it all seems so confusing - IMO. Yet because scripture speaks of these marvels in a future sense, they find an opening to move everything into the realm of speculation where the truth being revealed cannot be judged - let alone known. That is not why prophecy is given to us. Rather the prophecy is to help us know when these things come to pass by the signs given. That requires that we be familiar with the OT to know the symbolism being used to which a new facet for our understanding is being given.
The OT was steeped in literal pictures/ types/ shadows - and the NT uses these pictures to show us spiritual truth. Noah being carried in the ark safely thru judgment that fell upon the rest of the world is a literal picture of the wheat being gathered into the barn. The difference being that the barn is not a literal physical location in this world, but a spiritual haven of safety. Floods and wars are given similar connotations, which obviously are not the same literal things.
This to me is the basic struggle we are having in trying to understand what scripture is showing us for our understanding of things not seen in this realm - yet are truth nonetheless. The rapture is one of those pictures. We know the Lord literally was raised up from the dead back into His physical body which then was carried up into heaven. That is the literal picture - the type for us to see. But our own raising up and ascension is not going to be seen in the same way in this physical world.
Yet the futurist insists it must be exactly the same and because he has not seen where this has occurred in this realm, he assumes it has not and therefore is still future. He thus bypasses his need for faith to understand anything because he is relying upon seeing these things happen. And the result is that he fails to recognize the sign that was given which signified the things that he would NOT see yet was to know.
I don't know that we are bringing much clarity in sorting this out when this premise of the futurist must be battled constantly in every passage. And it seems to be a snare to all who try to open their eyes to a spiritual understanding.
Perhaps I am getting a bit discouraged because I keep thinking they will be convinced when it is obvious they will not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 20, 2009 11:48:11 GMT -5
John 16:7-10 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
How do we rectify this one?
As for the sign from the son of man in heaven (Matthew 24:30), perhaps we should consider the following:
Jesus ascended to His Father in heaven. He stayed there until His second appearing. In fact, I think He stayed there DURING His second appearing just as the LORD did in everyone of His judgment comings in the OT. And since Jesus was to come "in the glory of His Father" (Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26), why then must we impose His physical presence on the AD 70 coming?
So we now come to the sign from the son of man in heaven. Where was the Son of Man? He was in heaven, right? So, instead of looking for a sign in heaven, as the sky, why can't the passage be read as the sign coming from the Son of Man (who is in heaven). There is a big difference here!
How could those who fled Judea at Christ's warning see His actual coming? They didn't have binoculars, Mount Palomar wasn't built yet, and there were no satellites orbiting above Jerusalem.
"See" is often expressed as "perception." We don't actually "see" the wind, but we know it is there by the actions performed by the wind on other objects. We don't necessarily see the truck that drove by in the wee hours of the morning just after the snowstorm, but we can "see" the evidence that it was definitely there by the tracks in the snow.
The destruction of Jerusalem and temple, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, and the desolation that this all brought was something that could easily be seen, even years after the event...
The new covenant in Christ is not focusing upon the physical. Those types and shadows had already been presented. Being in Christ is a spiritual reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 20, 2009 13:16:56 GMT -5
Did those witnesses who heard the true Prophet Jesus Christ give His prophecy only have a "perception" of Jerusalem being destroyed?
Was Jesus limited to only returning to the city limits of Jerusalem so those folks in Thessalonica needed a camera crew and directTV to see Him?
If those witnesses did not see what Jesus and Paul said they would see, then I am a most miserable man because that means I am following a false prophet who FAILED the scriptural test of a prophet of God.
It is amazing and yes, sad to me to see preterists agree with futurists and just dismiss the EYEWITNESS accounts recorded by Josephus and preserved by providence to prove to us that Jesus was indeed a true Prophet of God.
And if my rock solid unshakeable belief that Jesus Christ and Paul spoke truth makes me "childish" in the eyes of my fellow preterists then so be it.
FULLpreteristmouse
|
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Feb 20, 2009 14:01:53 GMT -5
I am sorry for using the word "childish" in an earlier post. That was uncalled for on my part. forgive me.
Please understand that, from what I have read, ALL who have posted thus far on this topic "believe" the Holy Scriptures. And therefore someone claiming that they "believe" what Paul said or what Jesus said when quoting Scripture, IMPLIES that the person of a different understanding does not "believe" it. Which is why I unfortunately got worked up and used the word "childish". Again I am sorry.
We all "believe" the Scriptures, we obviously have different understandings at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 20, 2009 15:18:46 GMT -5
Did those witnesses who heard the true Prophet Jesus Christ give His prophecy only have a "perception" of Jerusalem being destroyed? Was Jesus limited to only returning to the city limits of Jerusalem so those folks in Thessalonica needed a camera crew and directTV to see Him? If those witnesses did not see what Jesus and Paul said they would see, then I am a most miserable man because that means I am following a false prophet who FAILED the scriptural test of a prophet of God. It is amazing and yes, sad to me to see preterists agree with futurists and just dismiss the EYEWITNESS accounts recorded by Josephus and preserved by providence to prove to us that Jesus was indeed a true Prophet of God. And if my rock solid unshakeable belief that Jesus Christ and Paul spoke truth makes me "childish" in the eyes of my fellow preterists then so be it. FULLpreteristmouse Hi Mtymousie, If that make us "childish" we're not alone. No doubt all the saints listening to Paul thought being "caught up" in the CLOUDS to meet the Lord in the air at his coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17), took it literally. I venture to say not a single one took it as spiritually, or figuratively meaning to "remain" on the ground. How Could they come to that conclusion, knowing that Paul was literally "caught up" to heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2,5)? I mean how do one get from knowing of Pauls's literal "catching up" to heaven, to thinking he was talking about a spiritual or figurative "remaining" on the earth. Paul was not a false prophet, and he did not hesitate to correct misinformation and error! Lady Sower~ |
|
