Skip to main content

Hi to all my Forum Friends,


Haven't been very active lately.   But, now with the holidays over, I have taken a few days to get my fantastic blessing from God, a new computer, on the air.   Back in December a dear Friend from Huntsville sent me a new HP EliteBook computer and after all the holiday activity -- I am finally getting all my programs and files transferred.   It is truly a blessing to my Christian ministry.   Also, for relaxation, now I can again watch videos, movies, and BAMA football games on my large flat screen display.   I am once again a happy camper!

So, let's get back into the saddle - and talk about one of my favorite subjects -- the Rapture!

LET'S TALK  ABOUT THE RAPTURE!

There are basically five views of the Rapture:

(1)  Never happen!  The Rapture is only a fantasy, a myth propagated by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. 

 

Problem with that view:  Non-believers and Liberal theology believers need this view.   For the non-believers, to accept the Rapture is to admit a belief in God.  And most are not ready for that yet.    For the Liberal theology believers, the Rapture refutes their belief in purgatory - or - their belief that Jesus will stay in heaven until it is time for us to enter Eternity - or - their belief that society is getting more righteous every day and when the world is righteous, He will come and take us into Eternity. 

 

(2)  Mid-Tribulation Rapture:  Christ will rapture His church; but, not until the middle of the seven year Tribulation.

 

Problem with that view:  Key fault with this belief is that it destroys the doctrine of immanency, that Christ's return to Rapture His church could happen at any moment - but, no one knows the time or date. 

 

(3)  Pre-Wrath Rapture:  Christ will rapture His church; but, not until three fourths of the way through the seven year Tribulation.

 

Problem with that view:  Key fault with this belief is that it destroys the doctrine of immanency, that Christ's return to Rapture His church could happen at any moment - but, no one knows the time or date. 

 

(4)  Post-Tribulation Rapture: Christ will Rapture His church at the end of the Tribulation. 

 

Problem with that view:  Key fault with this belief is the same problem of immanency.  And since post-tribulation is the time of His Second Coming, why would He rapture us into heaven -- at the same time He is leaving heaven to return to earth and establish His Millennial Kingdom in Jerusalem? 

 

(5)  Pre-Tribulation Rapture:   Finally, a Rapture view which makes sense and is Biblical.  Christ will keep His church from the wrath (Rev 3:10, 1 Thess 5:9). 

 

No Problem with that view:  Jesus Christ will appear and believers will be "caught up" (harpazo in Greek,rapiemur in Latin, rapture in English)    to meet Him in the clouds and we shall be with Him always. (1 Thess 4:17-18).

 

And, to quote the late well known and beloved anchorman, Walter Cronkite, who for so many years on The CBS Evening News most often signed off,"And that's the way it is!" 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day, 

Bill 

1 Thessalonians 4-17 - Charlie-Brown_Snoopy-2_CLOUDS_IN-WITH -1

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 Thessalonians 4-17 - Charlie-Brown_Snoopy-2_CLOUDS_IN-WITH -1
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Puppy, my Friend,

 

If you stay on the path you currently are walking, you have no need to fear the Rapture -- for in your current spiritual state you will never even know it happened.  That is until you happen to notice that a lot of folks you know -- are mysteriously missing.  

 

Then, you will have seven years to get your act together.  And, those will not be very pleasant years.   But, if you can get it together, you just might make the second cut.

 

Personally, I pray that you do get right with God -- before the Rapture.  I would love to have Christian fellowship with you -- as we both are going up.  But, that is up to you.  NO ONE can do it for you.  YOU have to turn to God yourself.  If you do, you will be in the Family of God.  If not, well eternity is a very, very long time.

 

God has left both doors open to you, until your last breath.  The problem with waiting is that we NEVER know when or how that last breath will occur.  It would be a real shame to get almost there -- but delay -- and "poof" an accident, or a heart attack, takes you suddenly -- without God.

 

Choose wisely, my Friend.  For eternity is a very, very, very long time.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

If You Died Today

Attachments

Images (1)
  • If You Died Today

Since the scriptures do not contemplate any of the various Rapture scenarios that Bill describes, it is easy to see how there have come to be so many conflicting versions of that event.

 

The most decisive refutation of all of that "pre-Tribulation" fiction is to be found in John

5:28 , 29:

 

"26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

 

Bill's "pre-Tribulation" version of the "Rapture" version of the so-called Rapture portrays an event in which  the righteous will be resurrected and transported to Heaven, while the evil dead, both living and in the graves, will be "left behind", later to face judgment.  But John 5: 28,29 clearly teaches otherwise, for it describes the fates  of the living and of the dead as being determined in the same "HOUR." No amount of weasel-wording and scripture twisting can alter the FACT of this very plain, very unambiguous description from Jesus Himself.  Those that have done good" and "those that have done evil" will emerge from the graves in the same "HOUR." Jesus scarcely could have made it any more plain that that, but ardent end times premillennialists just do not want to accept His clear teaching on the matter.  They want to read into the passage the notion that somehow "the hour" of which Jesus spoke is not the same hour for the evil dead and the righteous dead, and reading into the passage something that clearly is not there is the only way they can reconcile the passage with their Darbyite-Scofieldian  end times premillennialist fable.

 

Bill sometimes attempts to wax scholarly and in his smug pedantic manner gives us his little canned lecture on "eisegesis", the reading into scripture of something that is not there.  His take on John 5:28,29 is about as good an example of actual eisegesis as you can find.

If it is assumed, the Bible speaks a truthful account in all ways. And to further

assume Vic has never sinned for the many years he's being alive, then you

rightfully could believe he might be incapable of commenting sin.

 

There could be a few of you who aren't going to buy into my ability to part

 the Red Sea, and if that's the case, and you are right, then upon achieving

my first sin badge at just the right time, I could very well go to Hell if there is

such a place. If there's no truth in what I just said, then the Bible contradicts

itself and isn't worth the time to read it.

  

Contendah, my Friend,

 

You tell us:

 

Bill sometimes attempts to wax scholarly and in his smug pedantic manner gives us his little canned lecture on "eisegesis", the reading into scripture of something that is not there.  His take on John 5:28,29 is about as good an example of actual eisegesis as you can find.

 

You will find a full explanation of John 5:25-29 in my discussion titled "Is There Another Rapture View?" and there I explain in detail why YOUR Amillennial/Post-Millennial view of "No Rapture" is totaly unBiblical.

 

Of course you will complain and whine, "Why do I have to go to another discussion for an answer?"

 

My Friend, I promise you -- it is not all that difficult.  Even YOU can do it!

 

So, you cannot complain that I have not responded to you -- just that I did not do it where you wanted. Sorry about that!

 

Bless your little secular legalistic heart!

 

Bill

Awesome

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Awesome

Rather than repost all I wrote under another rapture heading I'll just post a link to it here:

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...another-rapture-view

 

While I respect there are many views regarding the rapture I do believe the Rapture is a concept and teaching that is taught and covered in scripture and alluded to many places.  I personally, after many years believing in a pre-tribulation rapture, found it to be unscriptural and I no longer could support it, especially from scripture.  Once I actually studied scripture and read what it said rather than what some pastor or teacher said it said I became more and more certain that not only did Christ teach about a Rapture but that teaching was conveyed to the apostles and repeated through the New Testament as well as Revelation.  

 

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided so each position should be able to be prersented from a scriptural basis and point of view.  After that we can research the various scriptures, read them, pray over them, and pray that His Holy Spirit enlighten us on the correct view and give us peace about it and debate it from there.

 

quote:   Originally Posted by gbrk:

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided -- so each position should be able to be prersented from a scriptural basis and point of view.  After that we can research the various scriptures, read them, pray over them, and pray that His Holy Spirit enlighten us on the correct view and give us peace about it and debate it from there.

Hi GB,

 

Yes, there are many Scripture teachings on the Rapture.  But, we cannot select only those which appear to support our chosen view.   While there are many man-created views of Bible truth -- there is only ONE Bible truth.   Scripture, being from God, does not contradict itself. 

 

And, in all the Rapture views I shared -- only ONE holds to the Scriptural teaching of immanence. 

 

Any view that contradicts Jesus' teaching of immanence -- cannot be true.

 

You say, "so each position should be able to be presented from a scriptural basis and point of view" -- and that is not true.  The teaching of immanence shows that is not true.  Any teaching which does not include immanence cannot be Scriptural and therefore cannot be true.

 

However, this is why those who hold to a Liberal theology Biblical view -- insist upon denying the literal reading of God's Word.  When we read the Bible as God's literal Written Word -- there is only ONE true meaning.

 

When one reads the Bible as only symbolic, metaphorical, and/or spiritual -- then one can interpret Scripture to mean whatever he/she desires it to say.   

 

So, to conclude, Jesus' teaching of the immanence of the Rapture -- leaves only one valid view -- a PreTribulational Rapture of the church.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Author Always Present

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - Author Always Present
Last edited by Bill Gray

When are you going to go back to remedial reading comprehension, Bill DHL™?   Or did you purposely put the "--" into what you "quoted" to intentionally change what gbrk wrote?

 

I'm going with the second possibility since you are a proven liar.  Of course you are such an idiot that the first could apply just as well. 

Crusty, my Friend,

 

Are YOU so limited in your dialogue skills that you must nitpick in an attempt to find something to complain about?  

 

You ask why I divided the long sentence that GB wrote.   Let's look at his original sentence:

 

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided so each position should be able to be presented from a scriptural basis and point of view.

 

Many years ago, I learned from two of my favorite writers, John Steinbeck and Ernest Hemingway, that to help folks better understand your writing -- one should eliminate the long words and the long drawn out sentences that run paragraph length.  If you are familiar with the writing of these very successful writers -- you will know that, whenever possible, they used shorter words and shorter sentences.  Why?  To make their writing easier to read.

 

If I were going to rewrite GB's full sentence, I would write it this way:

 

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided.  So each position should be able to be presented from a Scriptural basis and point of view. 

 

Instead of making it two sentences, I merely put in a long pause using the "--" which seemed to bother you a wee bit.  Sorry about that!

 

But, in doing that, I do not believe I change the meaning or intent of GB's writing.   If GB feels that I did change his intent -- I would appreciate it if he will tell me his real intent.  Otherwise, I must assume that I was correct in what I did.

 

Bless your little limited heart!

 

Bill

1 - Friends Christian Fish

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Friends Christian Fish
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by gbrk:

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided -- so each position should be able to be prersented from a scriptural basis and point of view.  After that we can research the various scriptures, read them, pray over them, and pray that His Holy Spirit enlighten us on the correct view and give us peace about it and debate it from there.

Hi GB,

 

Yes, there are many Scripture teachings on the Rapture.  But, we cannot select only those which appear to support our chosen view.   While there are many man-created views of Bible truth -- there is only ONE Bible truth.   Scripture, being from God, does not contradict itself. 

 

And, in all the Rapture views I shared -- only ONE holds to the Scriptural teaching of immanence. 

 

Any view that contradicts Jesus' teaching of immanence -- cannot be true.

 

You say, "so each position should be able to be presented from a scriptural basis and point of view" -- and that is not true.  The teaching of immanence shows that is not true.  Any teaching which does not include immanence cannot be Scriptural and therefore cannot be true.

 

However, this is why those who hold to a Liberal theology Biblical view -- insist upon denying the literal reading of God's Word.  When we read the Bible as God's literal Written Word -- there is only ONE true meaning.

 

When one reads the Bible as only symbolic, metaphorical, and/or spiritual -- then one can interpret Scripture to mean whatever he/she desires it to say.   

 

So, to conclude, Jesus' teaching of the immanence of the Rapture -- leaves only one valid view -- a PreTribulational Rapture of the church.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Author Always Present

First of all there are no less than three topic headings, maybe more, discussing the same thing which is tough on readers so I prefer to debate this under one of the other headings but I will comment here regarding this post.  You state that we cannot pick only those scriptures that appear to support our chosen view.   WOW, that's exactly what you do though only unfortunately none of the scriptures actually support the pre-trib timing position you advocate.

 

Again IMMINENCE is NOT taught in the Scriptures as you use it.  It means that NOTHING has to occur before the coming of our Lord and simply that is not the case.  Remember that these Scriptures were written at a time just after Christ ascended back to heaven and at that time there was surely plenty of things that had to happen BEFORE Christ was to come back.  The temple was to be destroyed, Israel was to become a nation again in her own land (1949) but these scriptures, you are using, were written before any of these events thus they were not IMMINENT except from the standpoint that Christ was saying keep our mind on heavenly things, watch for His coming.  

 

Imminence also violates completely what Paul was telling the Thessalonians in Chapter 2 of 2nd Thessalonians when, in verse 3

"2 Thessalonians 2:2-4 (New International Version)
2  not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
3  Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. "

So Bill you are using the scriptures inaccurately and for your own purpose to contour to your own belief rather than what they actually mean.  Imminence (That nothing has to happen before Christ return again) is simply NOT taught in the scriptures and EVERY verse you have used relates to the inability for anyone to know the exact date, day, time, of the Day of the Lord or the coming Rapture and not a teaching of Imminence.  JESUS DID NOT teach Imminence, far from it, His teachings in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 clearly lay out certain things that must occur before His return for the Church.  I shall direct anyone to other dialogs regarding this subject now, for keeping all of them going leads to confusion as the reader can easily lose their place and direction having to try and keep three separate topics about the same subject going.  You aren't relying on a liberal, literal, figurative or any view of scripture you are misusing the verses to be something they are not meant to mean under any interpretation.  Please don't do that.

 

 

GB, my Friend,

 

In another discussion, you tell me:

 

The TEACHING of Christ is NOT one of Imminence but rather stating that NO ONE knows the exact timing that God has chosen for HIs Day of the Lord's Judgment and/or the Rapture.

 

This makes me believe that you do not know the meaning of imminence.   But, first let me clarify one mistake in my writing.  My spell checker picked up "imminence" and converted it to "immanence."  The two words have totally different Biblical meanings.

 

Now, to define "imminence":

 

Perhaps Today: The Imminent Coming of Christ
by Thomas Ice
https://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/tt7.html

 

The New Testament teaching that Christ could return and rapture His church at any-moment, without prior signs or warning (i.e., imminency), is such a powerful argument for pretribulationism that it is one of the most fiercely attacked doctrines by pre-trib opponents. Non-pretribulationists sense that if the New Testament teaches imminency, then a pre-trib rapture is virtually assured.

 

Definition of Imminency:

 

What is the biblical definition of imminency?  Dr. Renald Showers defines and describes imminence as follows:

 

1) An imminent event is one which is always "hanging overhead, is constantly ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence." ("imminent,"The Oxford English Dictionary, 1901, V, 66.)Thus, imminence carries the sense that it could happen at any moment.  Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens.  If something else must take place before an event can happen, then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency.

 

It is my contention that, in these two Scripture verses, Jesus Christ is teaching us of the "imminence" of His coming Rapture of the church:

 

In Matthew 24:36 Jesus teaches, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

 

Acts 1:7, "He (Jesus) said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;' "

 

And, it is my contention that ONLY the PreTrib view is allowed by the teaching of imminence.   Those views which do not allow for the imminence of the Rapture -- cannot be valid.

 

GB, when you say of Matthew 24:36 and Acts 1:7 that "The TEACHING of Christ is NOT one of Imminence but rather stating that NO ONE knows the exact timing" -- your statement is similar to me saying, "No, that is a car.  I want an automobile!"  

 

Imminence and not knowing the exact timing mean the same.

 

And the PreWrath and MidTrib Rapture views deny the imminence of His coming to Rapture His church.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

AIG - The Gospel From The Beginning

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Crusty, my Friend,

 

Are YOU so limited in your dialogue skills that you must nitpick in an attempt to find something to complain about?  

 

You ask why I divided the long sentence that GB wrote.   Let's look at his original sentence:

 

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided so each position should be able to be presented from a scriptural basis and point of view.

 

Many years ago, I learned from two of my favorite writers, John Steinbeck and Ernest Hemingway, that to help folks better understand your writing -- one should eliminate the long words and the long drawn out sentences that run paragraph length.  If you are familiar with the writing of these very successful writers -- you will know that, whenever possible, they used shorter words and shorter sentences.  Why?  To make their writing easier to read.

 

If I were going to rewrite GB's full sentence, I would write it this way:

 

As for the many different teachings on the rapture, including that it doesn't exist, I will just say that I believe scripture is not divided.  So each position should be able to be presented from a Scriptural basis and point of view. 

 

Instead of making it two sentences, I merely put in a long pause using the "--" which seemed to bother you a wee bit.  Sorry about that!

 

But, in doing that, I do not believe I change the meaning or intent of GB's writing.   If GB feels that I did change his intent -- I would appreciate it if he will tell me his real intent.  Otherwise, I must assume that I was correct in what I did.

 

Bless your little limited heart!

 

Bill

 

___________________

Read the original sentence without your dashes.  The meaning is completely different.  Adding the period completely changes the meaning of the statement.  I understand that you are too stupid or too senile to understand longer, more complicated thoughts, but give it a try here, instead of inserting punctuation willy-nilly.

 

I am familiar with both authors, and neither resorted to dashes.  Your use of them is generally inappropriate, lazy, and ungrammatical. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×